It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bread & Circuses at Work Yesterday and Today.

page: 1
31
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+18 more 
posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
People arguing about the dress color = 100's of millions. I don't know, Billions?

People aware of what just happened with Net Neutrality? = Not so much.


The internet almost broke Thursday night after a heated debated over... the color of a dress. Are you Team White and Gold or Team Blue and Black? Video provided by Newsy Newslook
www.usatoday.com...


Observation = "Bread & Circuses"

Why this rant?

Just turned on the tube for my morning coffee and caught the NN discussion on the MSM with the smiling heads talking about how great NN is for the little people...Next up...What color is this dress?

So what happened yesterday? Typical bait and switch my friends. While people were talking about a dress color, NN got rubber stamped.

"Quick! Look Over Here!"

Even ATS got pulled into it. Look at the top live topic.

Bread & Circuses.

Peace



edit on 27-2-2015 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Yes the good guys won


The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else.


www.nytimes.com...

But the dress is blue and black no matter how many people are wrong

_____

So let me get this clear, you would rater have extortion and discrimination by privates today, than possible abuse of the rules in the future?
edit on 27-2-2015 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
thank you.
and even the people happy about NN passing... i feel there is more to it, something we are not being told and SHOULD be, here is what i mean:
The main changes for broadband providers are as follows:
Broadband access is being reclassified as a telecommunications service, meaning it will be subject to much heavier regulation

Broadband providers cannot block or speed up connections for a fee

Internet providers cannot strike deals with content firms, known as paid prioritisation, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumers

Interconnection deals, where content companies pay broadband providers to connect to their networks, will also be regulated

Firms which feel that unjust fees have been levied can complain to the FCC. Each one will be dealt with on a case by case basis

All of the rules will also apply to mobile providers as well as fixed line providers

The FCC won't apply some sections of the new rules, including price controls

All fine and dandy, but then you have this:
FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations On 3-2 Vote

there is a discussion to be made, me thinks, but sure let's all debate on the color of a dress, an ugly dress at that



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Make up a thread about a dog farting and I bet it gets 10x the S&F's of this thread.

I feel your pain



And it is WHITE and GOLD!



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

When I see reports like this, I'm sure it's exactly as you say, bait and switch. But my question is, what is wrong with Net Nutrality? It looks like it protects free speech from what I've read about it. Do I have that wrong?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I couldn't agree more about the stupid dress thing.
A morning DJ said we should find out all the people that actually cared about it, and not let them vote in the next election.

I got a good chuckle out of that.


And the problem with NN, regardless if your for or against, or what they are hiding, is that it isn't going to go into effect for a while, possibly years. They are already fighting it in court.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: jude11

Make up a thread about a dog farting and I bet it gets 10x the S&F's of this thread.

I feel your pain



And it is WHITE and GOLD!


I think I actually did a fart thread a few years ago.

It stunk and sunk.


Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Silenceisalie
a reply to: jude11

When I see reports like this, I'm sure it's exactly as you say, bait and switch. But my question is, what is wrong with Net Nutrality? It looks like it protects free speech from what I've read about it. Do I have that wrong?


Sorry, I just assumed most knew the pitfalls.

Here's a good read. Short but concise.

reason.com...

Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
So I get your point. I see it, and agree to an extent.

But every time something "big" happens, should no other news be reported? Should all media focus solely on that event for, say, six hours? 12? 24? I mean....it's one event. A big event yes, but still it's one event. The rest of the world doesn't stop because something happened. Does it?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Silenceisalie

It gives government control over the entity that is the internet. The government know has a hand in the completely private affair that is the internet. And it does so, because 5 people (who werent elected by the public)took a vote.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Right, for it's impossible to be aware of both...


haven't you heard? Politicians are gonna do whatever the hell they want!

What are you gonna do about? The same thing you do every day Pinky!



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: jude11

Right, for it's impossible to be aware of both...


haven't you heard? Politicians are gonna do whatever the hell they want!

What are you gonna do about? The same thing you do every day Pinky!


And which did you find more entertaining?

Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
So I get your point. I see it, and agree to an extent.

But every time something "big" happens, should no other news be reported? Should all media focus solely on that event for, say, six hours? 12? 24? I mean....it's one event. A big event yes, but still it's one event. The rest of the world doesn't stop because something happened. Does it?


Nope. Not my point.

Report everything and everything I say.

Timing is everything tho. Same as bills passed on XMAS eve, NY Eve, Any Friday before a long weekend, during the Superbowl etc.

Timing.

Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: jude11

Right, for it's impossible to be aware of both...


haven't you heard? Politicians are gonna do whatever the hell they want!

What are you gonna do about? The same thing you do every day Pinky!


And which did you find more entertaining?

Peace


If you want to bring up entertainment, you create a thread about:
NN v. Sports
NN v. Kardashians
NN v. Secret prisons
NN v. All threads that have gotten more stars and flags than NN threads.

But I know you're referencing the apathetic populace and not any individual, so the point isn't lost on me. The internet isn't broken and they come up with a secret bill and they get what they want. Follow the money, we freaking lose again. So whats new?

How much is it going to cost ME? -- thats all people care about in the end.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
So, after thirty minutes of reading up on it....


What points raise issue over the NN rules to make people concerned?

Now, yes, there is always the idea that something which sounds good will be used against it's apparent purpose, but what exactly is it that people are concerned about?


I genuinely do not see anything for concern. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just truly don't see anything negative.
edit on 27-2-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: Silenceisalie
a reply to: jude11

When I see reports like this, I'm sure it's exactly as you say, bait and switch. But my question is, what is wrong with Net Nutrality? It looks like it protects free speech from what I've read about it. Do I have that wrong?


Sorry, I just assumed most knew the pitfalls.

Here's a good read. Short but concise.

reason.com...

Peace


Thanks for the link. I am interested and it is tough to get a real picture of this from the "stew" of interest groups. I grabbed what I think are the main thrusts of the article you linked.



it makes no economic sense from a society-wide perspective to make such a large investment to serve so few people. It's a handout to rural Internet consumers, pure and simple.

I find it hard to agree with this one. People said the same thing about public sewer systems and electricity.



What we risk doing by ramping up the government's regulatory authority over the Internet is to make it easier for the government to pressure ISPs, many of which are data custodians, to get what they want.

That may be true but when you look at the big picture, the executive branch and the judicial already team up get everything they want and more. Having the FCC go after ISP's would more or less be public. The executive branch already owns the internet and has done it secretly --that is the elephant. The FCC is the rat trying to get cheese.



Comcast and Netflix, two of the main parties in the public debate, are squabbling about who should bear the financial burden of building and maintaining the costly infrastructure needed to deliver streaming video to consumers. There's no dire threat to freedom hinging on the outcome of that fight. The threat to Internet freedom is government control. That means that if you care about liberty, you should oppose Net neutrality and Title II reclassification.

This is where the article goes off the tracks. The author is playing "3 card monte" and that is a universal signal that merit is weak. Yes the threat is government control --but it has zero to do with ISP's and everything to do with the surreptitious surveillance state which has it's fangs sunk deep already. This battle was lost long before people realized they were fighting.

So, in my thought process, this loss of liberty angle isn't primary. It might not even be secondary. I can see how this is a distortion of idealized (notice the qualifier there) markets but you've already got a taffy pull going here. Government rarely works, but public infrastructure is an area where you must admit it has greatly contributed to both quality of life and the business climate. I see no meaningful similarity between the ACA and this particular measure. Ted Cruz's comment is drivel as usual.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

While I agree the world is easily distracted...to our doom on occasion....I think things like what happened yesterday are kind of cool because, in a world full of individual experiences -internet, ipods, streaming content - people shared something...even if it was utterly inane. They shared.

Now think how amazing it would be if we could all share something positive or meaningful or helpful?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Coincidentally, I just clicked on this thread at the exact same time the morning news is talking about this right now.

Weird.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

As we all know...there are a lot of horrible things going on...on this planet right now.

Sometimes people need to get away...(if only for a few moments)...and discuss the color of a dress...or what movie to go to etc.

It is like a (mini-vacation) of the mind...for a few moments...a way to handle all the stress...that comes our way daily.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
IMO the reason things like this gain so much momentum is because people do not want to be constantly weighed down by all the difficult issues society is facing on a daily basis. There is only so much a person can take, so they relieve some of the stress by obsessing over interesting, yet meaningless things like the multi-colored dress, the kardashians, the oscars, book porn about bdsm, or whatever other flavor of the week comes along.

Being inundated constantly with fear inducing news has made people numb to it. Even if all that energy that went toward the dress was focused on something like net neutrality, or some other "honorable" cause, it would soon lose its time in the spotlight and something worse would be put in its place. It is a never ending cycle of catastrophe and sometimes people need a break.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<<   2 >>

log in

join