Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If it does affect sites like these, a lot of people will be miserable, and unable to deal with having these fetishes because they will think they are the only ones and be ashamed of it for life, which

It still has to go through Congress to go into action. Keep calling your congressman and telling them that your against the repeal and that they should vote against it.

New York's Attorney General is planning on taking the FCC to court over all the shady shit they've been pulling this year. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-i-will-sue-stop-illegal-rollb

If it does affect sites like these, a lot of people will be miserable, and unable to deal with having these fetishes because they will think they are the only ones and be ashamed of it for life, which may even be shorter. If it wasn't for sites like these I'd still be fighting my fetishes, which only leads to misery and self-loathing.

Of course whoever's behind this probably doesn't care about people with "disgusting" kinks like these, and thinks the world would be better off without us. No good will come from this, mark my words. If only the general public was smart enough to oppose this.

Edited by The Dark Wolf (see edit history)
Link to comment
19 hours ago, The Dark Wolf said:

If it does affect sites like these, a lot of people will be miserable, and unable to deal with having these fetishes because they will think they are the only ones and be ashamed of it for life, which may even be shorter. If it wasn't for sites like these I'd still be fighting my fetishes, which only leads to misery and self-loathing.

Of course whoever's behind this probably doesn't care about people with "disgusting" kinks like these, and thinks the world would be better off without us. No good will come from this, mark my words. If only the general public was smart enough to oppose this.

According to this poll  http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Net_Neutrality_Quaire_121217.pdf the general public does oppose it. The problem is that Ajit Pai has proven he doesn't care what the general public thinks.

Link to comment

Exactly what EMT said. The FCC still has to present their plan to Congress and get it passed. Ajit Pai might be a dick in the regard that he completely disregards the wants of the people but their plan can still get nerfed, as it has been in the past.

As I understand it, many states are already taking steps to counteract the FCC's decision. Washington State has already begun putting forth a plan to protect consumers. https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/state-leaders-announce-steps-protect-net-neutrality

The fight is not over. Call your reps. Call your governor. And if they don't listen, remember that in November 2018, a good majority of Congress will be up for re-election :)

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, OmoCommando said:

Exactly what EMT said. The FCC still has to present their plan to Congress and get it passed. Ajit Pai might be a dick in the regard that he completely disregards the wants of the people but their plan can still get nerfed, as it has been in the past.

As I understand it, many states are already taking steps to counteract the FCC's decision. Washington State has already begun putting forth a plan to protect consumers. https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/state-leaders-announce-steps-protect-net-neutrality

The fight is not over. Call your reps. Call your governor. And if they don't listen, remember that in November 2018, a good majority of Congress will be up for re-election :)

I wonder what a majority of the republicans feel.  I think democrats all against repeal.  Do you know?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

As I understand it, many states are already taking steps to counteract the FCC's decision. Washington State has already begun putting forth a plan to protect consumers. https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/state-leaders-announce-steps-protect-net-neutrality

New York's Attorney General is planning on taking the FCC to court over all the shady shit they've been pulling this year. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-i-will-sue-stop-illegal-rollback-net-neutrality

So it sounds like we have multiple options to combat it. In any case, do not panic. This fight is far from over, and at the very least, we'll have a few more months before they can start implementing anything.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, MasterXploder said:

New York's Attorney General is planning on taking the FCC to court over all the shady shit they've been pulling this year. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-i-will-sue-stop-illegal-rollback-net-neutrality

Good

4 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

Yeah there's a pretty big scandal going on right now about social media accounts of deceased persons suddenly making comments supporting the repeal of net neutrality and the FCC is refusing to cooperate with any investigations. Quite shady indeed.

Wow. If this is confirmed their evil plot will be crushed once and for all!

Link to comment

Just some quick details here...

On 12/14/2017 at 7:01 PM, EMT said:

It still has to go through Congress to go into action.

The plan has been approved, and as it is regulatory (not legislative), does not require the approval of Congress to be implemented. It will not be implemented immediately, however, given it must first be filed, and then a 60 day waiting period starts after that. This doesn't mean Congress can't act on this, just that they are not obligated to whatsoever (see below).

19 hours ago, MasterXploder said:

New York's Attorney General is planning on taking the FCC to court over all the shady shit they've been pulling this year.

The fake comments have been a major cause for concern, though given this plan goes against public opinion, in general, and on both sides of "the aisle", I doubt public comments (faked or not) played any part in this decision...

22 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

As I understand it, many states are already taking steps to counteract the FCC's decision.

There are court challenges being brought by State AGs and private groups that will likely delay such implementation until a court ruling has been handed down, assuming they are granted a stay. Keep in mind that a stay is not guaranteed, and the cases being brought are far from a "slam-dunk".

22 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

Washington State has already begun putting forth a plan to protect consumers.

Unfortunately, options are limited in this regard, depending on the outcome of the court cases. Assuming the FCCs new plans are upheld in their entirety, states will not be able to preempt them by creating their own net neutrality regulations, since the FCC plan specifically prohibits states from doing so. Of course, the prohibition on state-level laws could be struck by the courts, allowing states to craft their own net neutrality rules.

22 hours ago, Rick Dixon said:

I wonder what a majority of the republicans feel.

Support for net neutrality among Republicans is high as well, with the majority in recent polls in favor of the rules. This affects them just as much as any other political group.

22 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

The fight is not over. Call your reps. Call your governor. And if they don't listen, remember that in November 2018, a good majority of Congress will be up for re-election :)

This is everyone's best option at this point in time. Congress has the option to pass a joint resolution overruling the new FCC plan, forcing Ajit to maintain the 2015 order and its Title II classification. He would still have the authority to interpret (and enforce/not enforce) the rules as he sees fit. He would also have the option of starting the process over to try again, giving ISPs more time to lobby Congress even further against action.

Congress could also write and pass a bill making net neutrality a legal requirement of ISPs. This would be a permanent solution, and one that couldn't be changed just because a new President came in and appointed a new FCC commissioner/chairman.

4 hours ago, Rick Dixon said:

Let’s remember also that if the rules are repealed (which I don’t want to happen) it doesn’t mean every company will suddenly become evil.  Maybe.

In the absence of a stay, we'll find out shortly. The only part of net neutrality that's survived the wrath of Ajit Pai is the transparency clause, meaning that while ISPs will be able to throttle traffic, block content, prioritize traffic for additional payment, paywall third-party/competing applications/services, zero rate their own services, and more, they'll have to publicly disclose when they do it, as well as disclose any back-room extortion paid-prioritization deals, such as those by Comcast with Netflix before the 2015 order...

Edited by HPattern (see edit history)
Link to comment

Yeah I feel like everyone should be aware that this is not the end of the internet as we know it, despite what a lot of people would have you believe. You're not gonna be charged $20.00 a month just to access Twitter or anything like that. ISP's aren't gonna do anything which will alienate their customer base. It is highly unlikely that omo.org will be impacted by the NN repeal.

What gets me more is the US government blatantly disregarding public opinion and dismissing opposing arguments as childish or "trolling", as Pai puts it. The NN fiasco has been a shining example of how party loyalty and fat paycheques are preferable to actually serving the people, which is why I urge everyone to be aware of where your state reps stand on the issues you care about. The biggest message you can send it making sure these clowns do not re-elected into office if they are not willing to support you.

2 hours ago, HPattern said:

Unfortunately, options are limited in this regard, depending on the outcome of the court cases. Assuming the FCCs new plans are upheld in their entirety, states will not be able to preempt them by creating their own net neutrality regulations, since the FCC plan specifically prohibits states from doing so. Of course, the prohibition on state-level laws could be struck by the courts, allowing states to craft their own net neutrality rules.

I mean, If Alabama can prohibit gay marriage, despite federal law, I'm pretty sure Washington can get away with ignoring FCC regulations. Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

Yeah I feel like everyone should be aware that this is not the end of the internet as we know it, despite what a lot of people would have you believe. You're not gonna be charged $20.00 a month just to access Twitter or anything like that. ISP's aren't gonna do anything which will alienate their customer base.

Agreed. ISPs will focus on implementing policies that make them the most money, while pissing off the fewest voters, reducing the risk of public outrage that could lead to net neutrality regulations being brought back again.

This means focuses on paid-prioritization (charging Netflix/YouTube/Spotify/Pandora on the back-end for full speed delivery of content to customers, thereby charging them twice for their own connection to the web, and passing the costs onto you via your Netflix bill) and zero-rating (making deals with certain sites where the sites pay for their data to not count against your data cap, making their competitors less attractive to those with lower data caps), rather than pay-walling or outright blocking content.

Hybrid tiered service could come about as well, but I don't see that for a while...

2 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

What gets me more is the US government blatantly disregarding public opinion and dismissing opposing arguments as childish

We've reached a point where lobbyist money is more important to elected officials than what the people who elected them want. This is a dangerous situation for a society to find itself in, and we need to correct this, or risk the consequences. I sincerely hope we can take a hard look at ourselves, and at a bit of world history, and make the right choices. I have zero faith that we will.

2 hours ago, OmoCommando said:

The biggest message you can send it making sure these clowns do not re-elected into office if they are not willing to support you.

Every US House seat is up for election every two years. Every time we go to the polls, we consistently send the same person back, election after election, even as our approval of their work slides further and further down the toilet.

The US House incumbent reelection rate for 2016 was 97%. Looking at elections back to '64, we've sent between 85% and 98% of the House back every single time.

The Senate has six year terms, with about a third of all seats up every two years, and it's just as bad. In 2016, the incumbent reelection rate was 93%, and it hasn't dipped below 79% since 1986, with rates in the upper-80s and lower-90s being par for the course. It's only been below 80% in 3 of the last 18 elections!

We've created this monster, and the only way we can begin to tame it, is to show it we still have control over it. You can't say your Representative/Senator is doing a terrible job, then pat them on the back and vote them back in, and then complain that they haven't changed their ways. You wouldn't give your dog a treat for pissing on the couch, would you? Well, then stop doing it...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HPattern said:

The US House incumbent reelection rate for 2016 was 97%. Looking at elections back to '64, we've sent between 85% and 98% of the House back every single time.

The Senate has six year terms, with about a third of all seats up every two years, and it's just as bad. In 2016, the incumbent reelection rate was 93%, and it hasn't dipped below 79% since 1986, with rates in the upper-80s and lower-90s being par for the course. It's only been below 80% in 3 of the last 18 elections!

We've created this monster, and the only way we can begin to tame it, is to show it we still have control over it. You can't say your Representative/Senator is doing a terrible job, then pat them on the back and vote them back in, and then complain that they haven't changed their ways. You wouldn't give your dog a treat for pissing on the couch, would you? Well, then stop doing it...

Far easier said than done, sadly. The 2016 presidential elections opened my eyes to just how much dirty play goes on behind the scenes, and I can't imagine it being any different for the congressional elections, even if on a smaller scale. I guarantee most of those getting re-elected are not doing so because the people genuinely want them back, but because they've effectively cheated the objectively better people out of the chance to win. You've hit the head on the nail; repealing net neutrality is merely another symptom of a government that's being steadily rotted from the inside-out over the course of several decades. I still hope for things to improve, but the cynic in me can't help but think any significant improvements are not going to come from the voting booths but something much more dramatic.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, MasterXploder said:

Far easier said than done, sadly.

It's still possible, we've just let it go so long that the only way out is to make difficult choices that we've been conditioned to avoid.

52 minutes ago, MasterXploder said:

I guarantee most of those getting re-elected are not doing so because the people genuinely want them back, but because they've effectively cheated the objectively better people out of the chance to win.

This is a big problem at all levels, whether it's party leadership doing the cherry picking directly, or their corporate money machine keeping un-bankrolled candidates down.

If you're into the whole "change your party from the inside out" thing, and a proper un-incumbent candidate without corporate baggage is available, vote for them in your party's Presidential/Senate/State Governor primaries, and go with that candidate. US House primaries are far less common, but check if your race is contested and vote in that one too. Local legislative races vary wildly, so I won't talk about those in this post.

In the case of general elections (assuming your above-referenced primary pick lost, or was nonexistent), vote for the 3rd party candidate that most closely aligns with your views. Just be prepared, if you're on the left side of things, all of your like-minded friends will scream RALPH NADER at you and insist you're wasting your vote.

If the race in question has no 3rd party candidate (again assuming your primary pick lost/didn't exist), your last option is to vote for whoever isn't in the office already. If both candidates are new to the post (eg the incumbent is retiring/resigned/died), you can either go with whoever has less connections to lobbyists/history in DC, or whoever's with the opposite party of who held the seat before.

If enough people start going this route, we start getting better and/or third party candidates in office, and we put the big two on notice, forcing them to abide by our will or be left behind, as they should. It's not easy, but I'll continue to argue it needs to be done, or we're in for a bumpy ride.

Edited by HPattern (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 12/16/2017 at 12:50 PM, HPattern said:

The plan has been approved, and as it is regulatory (not legislative), does not require the approval of Congress to be implemented. It will not be implemented immediately, however, given it must first be filed, and then a 60 day waiting period starts after that. This doesn't mean Congress can't act on this, just that they are not obligated to whatsoever (see below).

No everything's gotta go through Congress. That 5 person vote was just to see if it would go to congress. It has to go through Congress to get to the president's desk. 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, EMT said:

No everything's gotta go through Congress. That 5 person vote was just to see if it would go to congress. It has to go through Congress to get to the president's desk.

This isn't a law. It isn't subject to the legislative process.

As I've stated above, Congress has the option to override the new rules by way of a joint resolution via the CRA, but in no way do they have to approve of these new rules for them to go into effect.

If you're holding out hope for enough Republicans to jump on board with the Dems and vote for such a resolution striking the new rules, and then for Trump to sign it, then more power to ya', but I don't see that happening...

Link to comment

Actually HPattern if you had researched this you'd know lots of Republicans actually do side with Dems on keeping net neutrality.  Many AGs include  my home state have done this.  Filing law suits.  As for Trump, he's too stupid to see the people who voted for him are losing faith.  1100 jobs lost in a company he promised to save.  All those workers said they voted for him and now they call him a liar.m people who voted for him hate his tax plan. Remember this guy said he could shoot someone and not lose voters.  

 

You know who else blocks Internet content?  Russia, North Korea, oh that's a shocker.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Rick Dixon said:

IMO overall Ameeica is doomed.  National debt out of control.  Social issues, divided.  People stand up for Nazis right to walk in the streets.  Healthcare failing.  This is NOT a great nation.  

you are completely right but hate speech is still free speech nazis have a right to speak

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...