So Y'all for Net Neutrality now?

a reply to: Ohanka

A good example of the shift you mention is visible during the COVID lock downs. The left is largely in favor of them, and the heroes of the lock down include the "essential" workers of big corporate big box stores like Walmart which used to be a special hatred of the left because they abused their workers terribly.

Now those workers are saints, Walmart and other big box corps are essential services, and mom and pop stores that leftists used to lionize are demonized as hot beds of plague, and when the independent small business owners try to open and work to avoid losing everything, the left are the among the most vicious in calling them horrible people who want to kill everyone.

originally posted by: okrian
Except this is entirely not true. The left felt completely disenfranchised by Obama within the first 6 months of his presidency when they saw that he was just another corporatist (i.e. not "left" at all). And to many of us, he spent way too much time trying to reach across the isle when we knew that wasn't going to go anywhere, nor was it going to be reciprocated (and we were right). In fact there are many interviews done with him where this very topic is raised (how the actual 'left' lost their faith in him). And you certainly didn't see people fanning out over Obama on ATS in any sort of measurable way. In fact, there was a general consensus that fanning out about government, no matter what the side, was highly suspect. And a stance that anyone who would come to this site (on either side) would steer clear of doing. History and all that.

Well he had a love fest with the Media for 4 years...On his second term things got a little hotter for him, but outside of FOX and maybe someone like Rush he had it rather easy. Even to the point the House proclaimed they would never impeach him right up front and so Obama did some rather crazy events untethered that even leaked into the 2016 election. Obama had his share of fanboys/girls right here too who wouldn't even give it a second to talk about events like Fast and Furious, Weaponizing the IRS/FBI, truly going after reporters....Or even talking about his campaign promises that he pulled 180 degrees on.

My true opinion on the whole Trump fanboy narrative is that Trump took so much crazy flack daily that it almost became the norm to defend him even when we could have found a common ground to agree on. No one wanted that on the left, and I tried over and over. I called out Trump's character flaws a 100 times to wave a white flag to maybe just talk about his policies and not his tweets all the time, but the left for 4 years wanted no part of that.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: okrian

There's more, but good start!

Oh I know. There's an endless supply. But I also have to work today, so I can only spend so much time searching around into the entertaining back-halls or ATS yesteryear. Admittedly, it's pretty fun to go back. There was a ton of really great discussion pre-Trump/pre-progovernment.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I'm pretty sure parler is.... Err, was, a platform.
Just like Facebook, and Twitter.

They happen to offer an app to access their content, which is a craze that started with the iphones.

When Apple banned the app, it just meant you couldn't connect to their platform through your iphone easily.
Then Google did it for Android.

Amazon, unfortunately, owns the hardware and service that parler was using to host their platform.
It's incredible how many things Amazon hosts, these days.
Your child's school uses attendance software, that links with their grading software, etc. Goes right up through graduation, and colleges are often buying into the same system and have your k-12 records.

Police, fire, emt, courts, and prisons all use software, mostly from whoever has the most valuable software, and I know the company that hosts it for probably half the east coast.
Since they have tax dollar budgets they buy the best.

All that stuff, if it isn't in Amazon's services yet, is being migrated there one day at a time.

Almost every small startup is doing the same. It's the only affordable way to buy reliable hosting.
Building it yourself is a million dollar prospect, and you'd need staff to support and maintain it.
Having said that, other companies offer what Amazon does... Just usually for more money and less performance. There's a cost of scale problem.

a reply to: ketsuko

Amazon is another example. Worse than walmart in the way they treat their employees, actively support authoritarian governments efforts to oppeess people, and led by a man who has more wealth personally than 136!!! countries. Apparently the best thing to ever happen to the world now.

a reply to: a325nt

Building it yourself is a million dollar prospect, and you'd need staff to support and maintain it.
Having said that, other companies offer what Amazon does... Just usually for more money and less performance. There's a cost of scale problem.

Are you saying only liberals are smart and rich enough to handle these things?
If not, what is the excuse?

a reply to: ketsuko

That's the fault of the right though. The rights refusal to give to it's own platforms out side of money directly to individuals has lead to the lack of platforms. For better or worse the democrats are way more willing to give money to non profits, to angel investment groups and to technology incubators. Many of the startups by conservatives are also very self interested, small shops, single owner owned businesses things like that. The left has been a lot better with being willing to give up part of their earnings to expand business, or start businesses that act as platforms for others.

I know it's not easy and doesn't grant instant gratification, but there's plenty of space, new cheap and user friendly technologies and hard workers out their that can build the platforms if you can only come together to fund the projects.

As you've pointed out it's no good to only embrace our principles when convenient, we've got to do it when it's inconvenient also.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: okrian
Except this is entirely not true. The left felt completely disenfranchised by Obama within the first 6 months of his presidency when they saw that he was just another corporatist (i.e. not "left" at all). And to many of us, he spent way too much time trying to reach across the isle when we knew that wasn't going to go anywhere, nor was it going to be reciprocated (and we were right). In fact there are many interviews done with him where this very topic is raised (how the actual 'left' lost their faith in him). And you certainly didn't see people fanning out over Obama on ATS in any sort of measurable way. In fact, there was a general consensus that fanning out about government, no matter what the side, was highly suspect. And a stance that anyone who would come to this site (on either side) would steer clear of doing. History and all that.

Well he had a love fest with the Media for 4 years...On his second term things got a little hotter for him, but outside of FOX and maybe someone like Rush he had it rather easy. Even to the point the House proclaimed they would never impeach him right up front and so Obama did some rather crazy events untethered that even leaked into the 2016 election. Obama had his share of fanboys/girls right here too who wouldn't even give it a second to talk about events like Fast and Furious, Weaponizing the IRS/FBI, truly going after reporters....Or even talking about his campaign promises that he pulled 180 degrees on.

My true opinion on the whole Trump fanboy narrative is that Trump took so much crazy flack daily that it almost became the norm to defend him even when we could have found a common ground to agree on. No one wanted that on the left, and I tried over and over. I called out Trump's character flaws a 100 times to wave a white flag to maybe just talk about his policies and not his tweets all the time, but the left for 4 years wanted no part of that.

A couple things. One is the fact that there is, compared to Obama (due to Trumps own doing), an endless supply of material coming from Trump. You just didn't hear from Obama daily the way we hear from Trump. And people have and have had real critiques of Trump, both before his presidency and during. But there was so much constant spill coming from Trump, and yes, so much criticism, and so much defending, that it all became white noise.

So then critiques were just dismissed with simpleton writeoffs like "orange man bad" or "TDS". To say that people hate Trump for no reason is lazy. But I would agree that hating a position Trump takes just because its Trump is also lazy. And I think that at this point many just have learned not to believe anything Trump says, so it makes it hard to trust anything, good or bad at this point. Or the fact that Trump has flip-flopped on so many positions that no one knows what to believe.

Pre-Trump I also don't think politics were so widely discussed constantly. But this is also due to the fact that Trump was injecting himself into the fray every single day. And as president, we as Americans have a responsibility to pay attention. So perhaps this has a little to do with the perception that Obama was given a pass. There just wasn't near as much material. But honestly, I think you are off in thinking that the media supported Obama. Bush the 2nd had a bit of a rough go, but I'd be shocked if Obama wasn't slayed in the press more than Bush the 1st. Perhaps I also pay attention to media that shredded both Obama and Clinton for posing as 'the left' when they were anything but.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: a325nt

Building it yourself is a million dollar prospect, and you'd need staff to support and maintain it.
Having said that, other companies offer what Amazon does... Just usually for more money and less performance. There's a cost of scale problem.

Are you saying only liberals are smart and rich enough to handle these things?
If not, what is the excuse?

Corruption, government interference and suppression by entrentched monopolies.

America isn’t actually a capitalist country, it is a corporate oligarchy where the economy is run by a collection of vertical monopolies who control separate sectors. 5 corporations control over 90% of media i believe, and internet service providers make deals to carve their own fiefdoms out of the country, just two, notable examples.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: ketsuko

That's the fault of the right though. The rights refusal to give to it's own platforms out side of money directly to individuals has lead to the lack of platforms. For better or worse the democrats are way more willing to give money to non profits, to angel investment groups and to technology incubators. Many of the startups by conservatives are also very self interested, small shops, single owner owned businesses things like that. The left has been a lot better with being willing to give up part of their earnings to expand business, or start businesses that act as platforms for others.

I know it's not easy and doesn't grant instant gratification, but there's plenty of space, new cheap and user friendly technologies and hard workers out their that can build the platforms if you can only come together to fund the projects.

As you've pointed out it's no good to only embrace our principles when convenient, we've got to do it when it's inconvenient also.

It is astoundingly difficult to give money to a business who all payment processors have blacklisted due to a vicious and organised media propaganda campaign, as well as a social media attack mob.

a reply to: Ohanka

And OP wants to talk about more rules on the same monopoly, but that's not going to work. Who do you think writes the rules?

Does the OP think that Congress actively wrote the pages and pages of paper that had to wheeled over the Congress on a hand cart? Nope. Business lobbyists wrote it.

Again, fascism. Net neutrality makes zero difference in this.

originally posted by: okrian
It's pretty astounding to go back to the pre-Trump years on ATS (luckily we have this little time capsule) to see how conservatives felt about government getting involved in private business in any way, shape, or form. Going back to old threads is also a pretty sad reflection once you see what the Trump fanboys have done to this site... to see that there was a time when things were actually discussed, and the inflammatory garbage posts weren't paid any mind. And despite what the right wants to remember, there were no Obama fan-boys the way that Trump/government/elite sycophants have completely taken over.

But give me a few mins and I'll gather up some quotes where the conservatives posting here now can argue with the pre-Trump conservative posts... a few of those posters still here and have done a blatant flip-flop now that they don't like what private business is doing.

originally posted by: loam
it appears the newest threat is a general belief that the government should control or regulate everything-- companies and individuals alike...

The whole system smells like a Banana Republic.

That's your example for me? A decade old post about about the right left paradigm?

First, I still completely stand by that quote. In the context that it was made, it was to show a completely nonpartisan point that the US had a corruption problem.

Second, let's examine some obvious implications about your own world view...and I'll just use this thread now.

Apparently, any departure from a previously held belief is a flip flop. You only wish to characterize it in this manner because it serves to discredit the person you wish to paint with a broad brush as your opponent.

I used to be 100% a globalist. My thinking on that subject has completely evolved. But people like you won't permit that, because it doesn't confirm your bias that we are bad people.

Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself how clean your hands are? From my vantage point, they look pretty dirty.

a reply to: Ohanka

That very true. There have been several Conservative technologists/futurists who have championed the block chains and altcoins for that very reason. That's why education is so important. Maybe less so for what they teach and more so for learning how to research. Honestly it might be near impossible to teach many of the older/boomer Conservatives how to use the technology. But the younger generations can help by making white papers and walkthroughs, maybe making some videos on how to do it and posting the vids on you tube and bitchute.
You could set up not profits for helping to get that money where it needs to go or for incubating technologies in and of themselves. Heck someone could act as a holder have everyone venmo them money then they could write a personal check.
I'm not claiming it's easy but there are still paths forward for conservatism .

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: a325nt

Building it yourself is a million dollar prospect, and you'd need staff to support and maintain it.
Having said that, other companies offer what Amazon does... Just usually for more money and less performance. There's a cost of scale problem.

Are you saying only liberals are smart and rich enough to handle these things?
If not, what is the excuse?

Corruption, government interference and suppression by entrentched monopolies.

America isn’t actually a capitalist country, it is a corporate oligarchy where the economy is run by a collection of vertical monopolies who control separate sectors. 5 corporations control over 90% of media i believe, and internet service providers make deals to carve their own fiefdoms out of the country, just two, notable examples.

Yup.

Too bad we cant discuss the reality of the situation without being swarmed with "We dont want socialism. We don't want communism. We dont want government passing legislation."

Ok that's fine, this is the result of those knee jerk reactions so I guess we gotta just deal huh?

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: okrian
It's pretty astounding to go back to the pre-Trump years on ATS (luckily we have this little time capsule) to see how conservatives felt about government getting involved in private business in any way, shape, or form. Going back to old threads is also a pretty sad reflection once you see what the Trump fanboys have done to this site... to see that there was a time when things were actually discussed, and the inflammatory garbage posts weren't paid any mind. And despite what the right wants to remember, there were no Obama fan-boys the way that Trump/government/elite sycophants have completely taken over.

But give me a few mins and I'll gather up some quotes where the conservatives posting here now can argue with the pre-Trump conservative posts... a few of those posters still here and have done a blatant flip-flop now that they don't like what private business is doing.

originally posted by: loam
it appears the newest threat is a general belief that the government should control or regulate everything-- companies and individuals alike...

The whole system smells like a Banana Republic.

That's your example for me? A decade old post about about the right left paradigm?

First, I still completely stand by that quote. In the context that it was made, it was to show a completely nonpartisan point that the US had a corruption problem.

Second, let's examine some obvious implications about your own world view...and I'll just use this thread now.

Apparently, any departure from a previously held belief is a flip flop. You only wish to characterize it in this manner because it serves to discredit the person you wish to paint with a broad brush as your opponent.

I used to be 100% a globalist. My thinking on that subject has completely evolved. But people like you won't permit that, because it doesn't confirm your bias that we are bad people.

Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself how clean your hands are? From my vantage point, they look pretty dirty.

I agree that we evolve. These old posts were brought up for discussion purposes. Exactly like this. Not so much a question of cleanliness of any one person (me or otherwise). Never claimed you are a 'bad person'. I think you are well-written, both now and then. But there were a lot of universal stances that were taken, particularly among ATS members, about the role that government should have in private business, no matter what size that business was. And questions of the path that would follow if that were allowed to happen. And now the question of 'are we going to make exceptions for that, and if so, will those exceptions lead to further exceptions', to me, is a viable discussion.

a reply to: akiros

A rather pertinent fact if you think about it.

And taken to its logical conclusion aka the internet of things.

The implications are pretty plain if somewhat hard to swallow.

a reply to: okrian

Fair enough.

Then you might also agree that when conservatives complain about being shut out from the public commons or commerce, hearing a liberal use the argument 'but it's a private business' is nothing more than an escalation of the divide.

Am I "for" "net neutrality" "now?"

Well, thats a tricky question that implies alllll sorts of things.

In the coarsest, most direct terms.. I am for a free internet, so to speak.

Whether or not I support "net neutrality" would depend on entirely different factors. I can be certain they will market it in a way that is appealing, but the actual changes that would happen would probably differ quite a bit. It would also probably include thousands of pages (literally) of unrelated BS that I wouldnt support even if I did support the "net neutrality" aspects.

That gap is essentially at the core of every social manipulation in play. Up to and including the concept that if one doesnt approve of the corporate-political product of "net neutrality" that they are somehow at fault for everything "bad" about the situation.

Consume corporate-political marketing & products. Demonize those who do not. Repeat.

Not saying you do that JAG.. But many have tied their ideals to corporate-political marketing. Even in the best case scenario, turning our ideals into reality is significantly more work over significantly more time than many seem to realize. And consideration must constantly be given to the looming specter of the horrors that can be perpetrated "for the greater good."

We must exercise immense caution when the corporate-political system is marketing us our own ideals.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: okrian

Fair enough.

Then you might also agree that when conservatives complain about being shut out from the public commons or commerce, hearing a liberal use the argument 'but it's a private business' is nothing more than an escalation of the divide.

I would also hope that these binary responses lead to explanation of the nuances involved. Because without a pretty well thorough explanation as to why a previously held universal stance is being abandoned, just because of party, then it really appears that it's just because of party (or person/party in this instance). Otherwise, should I expect that this has been thought out to the degree that a government of opposing beliefs should wield the same degree of power? And/or the danger involved in that? Were these stances taken right the first time? Is this stance we should stand by no matter who is in power? Or is it different now just because of the foot the shoe is on?

Also... making a statement of what constitutes "public commons or commerce" is part of the discussion as well, as there was little dispute about that among conservatives, until now. And a lot of very blanket statements were made about this, so as to avoid any confusion.

a reply to: okrian

So in other words, rather that engage in discussion about policy and governance, you're more interested in motivations?

It's seems to me the moral litmus tests need to be dispensed with, if we have any hope of healing as a nation.

Peace is made with your 'enemies', not your friends. For that to happen, you have to stop maligning the character of your 'opponents'.