The FCC plans to vote away net neutrality in December

[the_randomizer]

How do you suggest protesting it then? Digging up a bunch of fiber lines? Cutting down the cable lines? DDOSing their DNS servers? Actually that all sounds pretty fun and if a lot of people did it, it would cost them millions to repair all that shit.

I hope they do get DDOSed, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, but for the FCC, it would be hilarious. Get those Verizon bastards too.

 

[MadMageKefka]

There needs to be a revolt against all these companies. First Comcast and ATT force data caps, then they skew and play favoritism with certain sites willing to bow down and pay the toll for the "speed lane".

But then, what can you do? You can't really vote with your wallet, unless people would mass rather have no internet, which is the most unlikely thing. It's not 2009 anymore, and living without internet is a huge deal.

The only thing left to do is protest it, and that's going nowhere. These big companies are going to keep doing what they want and just steamroll over all the people.

It comes to a point where you need smaller companies allowing for more freedom in the market, but Comcast-NBC/TWC/ATT-SBC are such large corporate monsters, it's near impossible.

Then you've got Google trying to bring gigabit internet access to people at a snails pace, which doesn't help either because they've proven as a company that they're okay with censorship and letting the big dogs do whatever they want. We got lucky with SOPA/PIPA, but unless we get a miracle, things look bleak.

Rather than boycott the entire internet, boycott any sites that pay for the better service. If companies begin to notice that playing along with the FCC's horseshit means a significant drop in traffic and by association, ad revenue, maybe companies like that would be less keen on signing their souls away.

 

[Lacius]

Rather than boycott the entire internet, boycott any sites that pay for the better service. If companies begin to notice that playing along with the FCC's horseshit means a significant drop in traffic and by association, ad revenue, maybe companies like that would be less keen on signing their souls away.

And vote for politicians who are dedicated to a free and open internet (i.e. the Democratic Party).

 

[the_randomizer]

And vote for politicians who are dedicated to a free and open internet (i.e. the Democratic Party).

I'll stay neutral on this part of the topic as well as abstain from voicing how I really feel.

 

[Lacius]

I'll stay neutral on this part of the topic as well as abstain from voicing how I really feel.

For the sake of staying on topic, we can ignore other political issues. However, on the issue of net neutrality, one party is clearly in favor of it, and one party is clearly against it. This isn't controversial.

 

[the_randomizer]

For the sake of staying on topic, we can ignore other political issues. However, on the issue of net neutrality, one party is clearly in favor of it, and one party is clearly against it. This isn't controversial.

And I realize that, I am stating on why I voted the way I did, and I'd rather not go into detail for my reasons behind it. I will say that the FCC being a bunch of douchebags is not one of them.

 

[MadMageKefka]

....getting back on topic. The bottom line here is that if this does go through and people want to change it, then we all need to have the balls to actually do something about it. Yes, no internet in 2017 would be rough, but it would give people no choice but to listen to public demand, or watch the entire industry crumble. My biggest problem with people today is that everyone likes to bitch, but when push comes to shove, people won't fight for what they believe in. Most would rather just give in and back down if its easier.

 

[ThoD]

How do you suggest protesting it then? Digging up a bunch of fiber lines? Cutting down the cable lines? DDOSing their DNS servers? Actually that all sounds pretty fun and if a lot of people did it, it would cost them millions to repair all that shit.

DDOS wouldn't work first of all since the providers have WAY more bandwith than all the people they provide to put together FCC itself though CAN get DDOSed but it won't matter, it's an organization, not a company making money directly from the people, so they won't care for one measly DDOS. As for the other one, yes! Sabotage the big providers and so on to cause them to lose millions, THEN they will have no choice but to accept that the people want unrestricted access to the internet! As things stand, they will only make more money with all this, but if you cause them to lose millions, then they will give in. HOWEVER, you gotta accept that for a good while you won't have access to the internet until they surrender!

And vote for politicians who are dedicated to a free and open internet (i.e. the Democratic Party).

Not gonna call you a retard, but are you stupid? The "democratic" party is the most anti-free speech political party WORLDWIDE! Also, just look at the important figures and how they acted 10 years ago and how they act now, you will see that they've changed completely just to get support on their side, not because they've actually changed. I mean, how do you go from full against gays and trans to full for them in 10 years? Seriously, they are bullshitting people worse than Bush did! Not saying the US republicans are great, but at least they bullshit you a bit less...

Back on topic now, use the internet while you can, gather a few thousand supporters and go sabotage the two big providers countrywide. That's all it will take, if they lose millions, they will start fearing you and give in. However, make sure you don't get caught vandalizing or you will have jail to worry about and in jail you don't get internet!

 

[Lacius]

Not gonna call you a retard, but are you stupid? The "democratic" party is the most anti-free speech political party WORLDWIDE!

I was going to respond to each point you made, but this kind of hyperbolic nonsense in your second sentence tells me you're not being serious. No American political party is the most anti-free speech political party worldwide.

 

[ThoD]

I was going to respond to each point you made, but this kind of hyperbolic nonsense in your second sentence tells me you're not being serious. No American political party is the most anti-free speech political party worldwide.

I don't really consider dictatorships to be "political parties". I forgot to make that clear...

 

[Lacius]

I don't really consider dictatorships to be "political parties". I forgot to make that clear...

And yet, members of the Democratic Party generally support net neutrality, and members of the Republican Party generally don't.

 

[ThoD]

And yet, members of the Democratic Party generally support net neutrality, and members of the Republican Party generally don't.

"Since when though?" is what you should be asking yourself. The democratic party only started supporting net neutrality after the republicans got the power to take it away, meaning that, for the most part, it was after their salty loss at the election (who wouldn't be salty losing to an orange?). You should take everything they say with a grain of salt, they could just be doing it for support against the republicans to guarantee their victory come next election for all we know. Also, don't think that if the democrats win next time things will be better, no politician really does what he says he will when they are running in an election if they win, they CAN'T do half the things they said they will! That's how politics work. But anyway, don't protest the government that's a puppet of the Congress anyway, protest the ISPs through sabotage and you will get what you want.

 

[Lacius]

The democratic party only started supporting net neutrality after the republicans got the power to take it away

That's not even close to true. The Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have been consistently for net neutrality, and the Republican Party has been consistently against it. It's part of each group's ideology. Democrats want it treated like a utility with regulations, while Republicans want the private sector to have free reign.

 

[ThoD]

That's not even close to true. The Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have been consistently for net neutrality, and the Republican Party has been consistently against it. It's part of each group's ideology. Democrats want it treated like a utility with regulations, while Republicans want the private sector to have free reign.

The so called "regulations" the democrats want though are almost the same thing, instead of taking away your speed and bandwidth they take your free speech. Anyway, not saying republicans are good, both of the parties are crap and anti-free speech who want to control even when you go take a shit, what I'm trying to get at since my first post about this is that you shouldn't blindly trust someone just because they SAY they support something when they have clearly not bothered to take any ACTION to support it and trust them even less if they are a politician, after all, lying is 99% of the job!

 

[Lacius]

The so called "regulations" the democrats want though are almost the same thing, instead of taking away your speed and bandwidth they take your free speech.

Can you back this up? How does anybody in the Democratic Party want to take away anybody's free speech? So far, the only politician I've seen who wants to take away anybody's free speech on the internet is Donald Trump, and that's not including his opposition to net neutrality.

 

[Subtle Demise]

DDOS wouldn't work first of all since the providers have WAY more bandwith than all the people they provide to put together FCC itself though CAN get DDOSed but it won't matter, it's an organization, not a company making money directly from the people, so they won't care for one measly DDOS.

Yeah I know it would be impossible to DDOS an ISP, that was mostly a joke for the person saying to get up and do something about it, when in reality there aren't many options to protest that don't involve illegal sabotage.

 

[ThoD]

Can you back this up? How does anybody in the Democratic Party want to take away anybody's free speech? So far, the only politician I've seen who wants to take away anybody's free speech on the internet is Donald Trump.

When did Trump try to take away free-speech? When democrats rioted at almost all republican events to shut people up or when they made threats? When democrat leaders supported the banning of other-partied people from social media and online platforms? Trump will take away your internet SPEED for the most part, VERY different from speech. AGAIN, no party is any good, both are shit, just saying you shouldn't trust politicians, do research on everything first or try running yourself!

Yeah I know it would be impossible to DDOS an ISP, that was mostly a joke for the person saying to get up and do something about it, when in reality there aren't many options to protest that don't involve illegal sabotage.

Illegal sabotage is good you know! Also, how many people online who are actually involved heavily in net neutrality happen to be electricians, electric engineers, electronic engineers and so on? They could easily try and do an inside job to sabotage the ISPs and get away with it...

 

[Lacius]

When did Trump try to take away free-speech?

I linked to when he expressed an interest in online censorship.

When democrats rioted at almost all republican events to shut people up or when they made threats? When democrat leaders supported the banning of other-partied people from social media and online platforms?

What are you talking about? I'm not aware of a single piece of policy or legislation by members of the Democratic Party aimed at taking away free speech.

 

[ThoD]

I linked to when he expressed an interest in online censorship.


What are you talking about? I'm not aware of a single piece of policy or legislation by members of the Democratic Party aimed at taking away free speech.

About Trump, I said "for the most part". As for the other one, you don't need to make some policy in order to have your supported riot for you to shut the opposition up. You are saying that the democrats had nothing to do with all the shit their supporters did after getting invoked to do them by the leaders! It wasn't an order, but there was never condemnation from the democrats about what all their supporters did, but there WAS support almost every time something major happened. Most importantly, how can you think a party that literally treats people depending on skin color and gender can be any good? At least republicans treat everyone just as shitty, even if that's their only strong point... Anyway, for the last time because we are derailing the thread, don't trust politicians, you can tell what they will do when they are in power easily, before the elections even, if you simply do research on them! Actions speak louder than words and in the last 4 or so years, neither party has really done anything FOR net neutrality.

 

[Lacius]

About Trump, I said "for the most part". As for the other one, you don't need to make some policy in order to have your supported riot for you to shut the opposition up. You are saying that the democrats had nothing to do with all the shit their supporters did after getting invoked to do them by the leaders! It wasn't an order, but there was never condemnation from the democrats about what all their supporters did, but there WAS support almost every time something major happened. Most importantly, how can you think a party that literally treats people depending on skin color and gender can be any good? At least republicans treat everyone just as shitty, even if that's their only strong point... Anyway, for the last time because we are derailing the thread, don't trust politicians, you can tell what they will do when they are in power easily, before the elections even, if you simply do research on them! Actions speak louder than words and in the last 4 or so years, neither party has really done anything FOR net neutrality.

You can't argue that the Democratic Party is bad on free speech rights without substantive policy positions to back it up.

In addition, you've completely ignored the facts as I've presented them to you with regard to the Democratic Party's consistent endorsement of net neutrality.

I think your thesis that we shouldn't trust politicians to do what they're going to say is completely wrong. President Obama advocated for net neutrality, and he instructed the FCC to classify it as a public utility. Donald Trump said he was opposed to net neutrality, and he's guiding the FCC to give businesses free reign over the internet. With regard to this specific issue, politicians should very much be trusted to do what they said they were going to do.

Edit: I'd like to respond to some of your other comments, but they didn't seem to make sense. For example, you said something about treating people depending on skin color and gender, but you didn't finish the thought. Treat people how? This is a rhetorical question. If you want to answer me, send me a private message so we don't derail the thread even more.