It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


So Y'all for Net Neutrality now?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 02:40 PM
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Because the government is part of it. Asking for the same entity that's hip deep in it to fix itself is asinine and counterproductive.

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 02:57 PM

originally posted by: loam
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'.

Hmmm. Yes and no. There is a reason for the motivation of stance (both historically and now), and that being the cause and effect of policy and governance. To separate these things seems like an unnecessary exercise, as the motivation is completely intertwined in the thoughts on policy and governance. Unless that motivation is purely emotional, which I don't think it was regarding this topic, as historically it was fairly consistent on the conservative side through a series of different situations (at least when spoken about). But if that is the case (purely an emotion based motivation), then it should be dismissed as irrelevant. This isn't overarchingly about a moral litmus test, it's about universal stances, if they should be held to, and if exceptions are being made for the right reasons. And then if exceptions are made, to what degree and will we be fine if the other side exercises the same power. Personally, I don't necessarily think stances are quite so black and white, but you do see a lot of that, especially around here.

But taking the questioning of these topics personally can only get in the way.

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 03:12 PM
I have ALWAYS been in favor of net neutrality, but technically speaking, delisting/deplatforming users/apps on the Internet is not the same as net neutrality.

Net neutrality is about fairness and equal access to data among different nodes on the Internet. In the past, some of the main concerns over net neutrality were ISPs establishing different 'lanes' of traffic, and slowing down or diverting requests for data that didn't match their desired criteria (i.e. users traffic is given lower priority if it's not for any content provider that's paying Comcast/Optimum for preferential treatment). Generally the biggest concern was unfair business practices and monetizing the WWW, rather than political censorship.

At the end of the day I think Big Tech are shooting themselves in the foot here and overestimating their ability to control their user base. I think we're going to see a LOT of funding thrown into R&D for developing competitors to many of the companies that today enjoy relatively little challenges to their market share.

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 03:19 PM
everything coming out of the flat plastic square thing (you/your family) sit and stare into, is fake. Yes, even "survivor".

a reply to: JAGStorm

great thread, OP!!

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 03:23 PM
a reply to: ReadLeader

Survivor is fake??????!!!!

Time to burn the whole place down!

More seriously...yes. I believe almost nothing I read or see on media anymore.

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 04:00 PM

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JAGStorm

Seems like that is actually the case.

Regardless, we now have a one-party government everywhere but the SCOTUS and they don't seem too interested in giving up the fascist structure Republicans were all too willing to build for them.

Actions have consequences.

When I say that Americans view fascism favorably, I meant that independently of party affiliation. I really feel like Americans love the fascism they've built for themselves and the reaction to net neutrality among the right, in general, seems to fit that bill. Right now, it's the conservatives that are feeling the brunt of this newly-found fascist love affair that their own Republican party has cast them aside for. Eventually, it will be everyone.

There was no victory on November 3rd for Americans anywhere. I maintained that then and I maintain it now.

In one way you are right, but if you look at the landscape for cheaters, then the cheaters obviously did not loose. In China they have a saying " you can win, but at the same time you loose ". A lot of truth to that.
Cheaters will always cheat, and once they have power over people, this where the Chinese saying goes hand in hand.

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 04:28 PM

originally posted by: nemonimity

I am all for conservatives having their own platforms if liberals are going to maintain their own.

But why in the first place? Why not just provide a platform period without pushing a political agenda? I personally feel the internet has been the driving force in splitting up the country and now you are for creating isolated platforms so everyone can sing kumbaya together in their own little world as that separation keeps growing?

I'd be willing to bet if the right felt more enfranchised by the people who run and control most of the wealth and resources on that side, there would be a lot less of the radicalization we've seen recently and a generally happier and better outlook.

Last time I looked the Goverment was all sides, or should be right? All these companies have been reaping great Goverment support, tax breaks etc for a long time now and people should just spring up new ones? Amazon paid zero taxes in 2018 and got like 130 million rebate with years of little profit that the Goverment supported a good deal.

So yes Twitter shuts down anyone within 6 degrees of Trump and 80 million head to Parler were now these tech giants say no no no you can't have that too, so it is bigger than just starting something new. They will fight to prevent anything new in the process and the liberals are just fine with that.

edit on 10-1-2021 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 04:55 PM

originally posted by: okrian
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.

TDS/OMB labeling came about due to the lack of discourse associated with complaints that was really just OMG reactions to his stupid tweets. People truly HATED Trump for taking Hillary, the first possible female President out. He never had a chance day one with the left, and of course he attacked as much as everyone attacked him.

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.

Well one could look at actions and results and talk about them... I disagree with flip-flopping though. He has been pretty steady on many things...

Biden will flip flop weekly, lie his ass off about his past stances to say whatever anyone wants to hear today. Even before when his brain was functional he wasn't a smart person, and he lied about that too...seems people could see through him in the past, but not today.

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.

I agree he did that...yep BIG character flaw of many... But the left sure played the "look squirrel" way too much. I never even followed him on Twitter, didn't really care. I think much of it was a never ending circle of MSM talking crap about him and him talking crap back.

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.

Outside of FOX who talked bad about Then when talk radio started to gain conservative ground with much of MSM liberal the liberals wanted to put controls on that to limit it. To be honest Obama did 6+ things that would have had Trump impeached within weeks if he tried even one. Obama also didn't have people in the streets screaming up at the heavens in a NOOOOOooooo event, he started like 65% approval rating, most everyone wanted to see him do good.

In any case it seems MSM doesn't even want to touch Biden on anything...He is truly being handled with kit gloves with unhand throws like someone is throwing a softball to a five year-old.

edit on 10-1-2021 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 09:27 PM
All the big corporations lobbying for net neutrality tells me it's bad.

posted on Jan, 13 2021 @ 10:27 PM
a reply to: JAGStorm

Has nothing to do with flip flopping. It has only to do with who is using the term MET NEUTRALITY and how it is manifesting in practice. And right now, to be on the side that sees the left as no more or less guilty of what's happening just a litmus test for someone's character being honest and capable, or truly moronic and selfish. Maybe u better start thinking in terms of practice and real life effect and not focus on that word neutrality in the absolute when giving freedom of expression to a monopoly creates a total silencing of opinion and a totally editorialized and skewed version of "the truth."

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in