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: 2
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

I thought the dress was 50 shades of grey.




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:33 PM
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?


Net Neutrality isn't really about free speech, it's about open markets. Net Neutrality can be defined in one sentence, and that's pretty much what the FCC did except they had to include all the legalese because that's just the reality of how lawyers work these days.

Net Neutrality is the idea that a packet of data cannot be discriminated against due to it's source, destination, or contents.


originally posted by: nullafides
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?


People are concerned because they're not very technical and don't understand it. Seriously, the entire tech industry aside from the ISP's are for this, and they're the ones who best understand it and it's impact.

Where as the people who are against it are the people who aren't that well versed in technology and want to repeat the mantra of Obamacare for the internet.
edit on 27-2-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
As far as the Net Neutrality thing goes, I'd like to have a look at what's actually been approved by the FCC. My understanding is that there's about 300 pages of it that haven't been made public. Why the secrecy?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
It's frustrating I know. TPTB understand sociology better than most. We don't want to know the scary truths & they know it. The bait and switch works because we are scared more than we are stupid. Deep down people know the republic is falling and freedom is just a word now that holds little weight. They just don't want anybody to confirm it. The confirmation scares them the most.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Net Neutrality isn't really about free speech, it's about open markets. Net Neutrality can be defined in one sentence, and that's pretty much what the FCC did except they had to include all the legalese because that's just the reality of how lawyers work these days. Net Neutrality is the idea that a packet of data cannot be discriminated against due to it's source, destination, or contents.


Ahh.... gotcha! So, I'm not technical myself, but it sounds like this isn't a bad deal. Of course, I will reserve judgement until I understand more.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Net Neutrality is the idea that a packet of data cannot be discriminated against due to it's source, destination, or contents.


That same packet of data can be taxed, as well. THAT'S what I think it's about.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: Aazadan
Net Neutrality is the idea that a packet of data cannot be discriminated against due to it's source, destination, or contents.


That same packet of data can be taxed, as well. THAT'S what I think it's about.


It can be, but it requires a change to the law. The FCC's plan actually reaffirmed the congressional moratorium on taxing the internet. If anything what was just passed was anti taxation.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Bread and games don't come from overlords like in the era of TV.
People feel free to think about a good stuff of their own choice, to grab a knowledge outside any education system and they feel free to decide if they will spend another year thinking about someone's war propaganda and evil, bad mood spreading BS of all kinds. There's always enough of a heavy and ugly stuff. Let's say you will give some 10% of your time to the heavy stuff and 90% to your own interests. 10 is actually too much. It's your lifetime. If you spend all your time in some kind of service as an online warrior you may not gain knowledge you needed and also you maybe won't have much positive to offer to mankind in the end.
There is a difference from the ancient past and the middle ages.
Warmongers won't get much likes these days. Overlords are not the only games-givers and knowledge owners. You can see a new kind of punk-socialism naturally growing online. People can spend 12 hours a day online reading like an adherent of scholasticism connecting the dots like never before.
I'm sure there could be less jihadists if they had an internet acces to talk about dresses and optical illusions from the childhood. Spreading freedom is still a good idea.
edit on 2/3/2015 by PapagiorgioCZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

You are absolutely right Jude

In the end blood will flow

Revolution and civil war

And it will happen when government pushes too far

And they will, believe me they will



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join