Thanks for admitting that internet.org is not the internet. As has been noted, subsidized free access has been done in the past. And nothing in that statement requires that facebook provide unlimited data or not perform reasonable network management. It only says that facebook shouldn't restrict what and how people try to view the internet. Its very important given Facebook's censorious past actions and the ease of censorship when there is a central gateway.
FACT: There are no ads within the Facebook experience on Internet.org. If revenue were the goal, Facebook would have focused resources on markets where online advertising is already thriving."
Note the weasel words. They are not saying there are not ads on internet.org, they are saying there are no ads on facebook on internet.org. But given all the site restrictions, I would bet getting your ads properly served is next to impossible. In fact this gem from the participation guidelines just about guarantees it:
But just because the internet.org Facebook is Ad-Free, doesn't mean Facebook isn't willing to offer their ad network to you.
That argument, besides being an ad hominim, is generally used to suggest that someone who could not replicate a result can not criticize someone who could. of course, just because I can't make complex dishes like a chef doesn't mean I can't tell you that there is too much pepper in the dish. The argument assumes that the result is objectively good, and that your subjective view is irrelevant. This fails because the result is often a subjective work, with subjective tastes being the only way to judge that work.
However, I fail to see how this argument applies, in any way, to the article at hand. Mike is commenting on a legal filing, and commenting on its merits.
A) have there been confirmations that the government has compromised a certificate Authority? B) Would a chinese of russian certificate authority neccisarily kowtow to the US Government? C) Without third party certification, How do we achieve security? Just taking the website's word for it wouldn't work...
WEll, to be realistic, if any time someone said a movie was 'Die Hard on a X' meant that movie was infringement, wed have a lot of infringement. (ref: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DieHardOnAnX) That's why initially Mike was thinking this was a non-infringement case.
The other 3 movies are only listed as a generic plot/story description, which is not infringement based on the idea/expression dichotomy. Godzilla is being considered infringed because all of the movie's promotion references Godzilla, and they used Godzilla in promotional art.
The Mazinger Z robot being used in the promotional image might also be infringement, particularly if that is the look they are going for and not just using it as a 'giant robot' placeholder.
My computer? Yeah it looks like I am running IPv4. both from the outside (google thinks i have an IPv4 address) and the inside (my computer and router are working IPv4, and have no IPv6 access). I mean if you had suggested a IPv4 VPN, maybe I might have been concerned, but too few ISPs even have IPv6 equipment, and have been dodging that upgrade for a decade.
Also, for your model to work, Id need to sign up with a Value added service vendor rather than my current ISP, I need to sign up for a plan that doesn't rate capacity, that vendor needs to somehow not be defined as an ISP by the FCC, And then that value added service provider needs to commit corporate seppuku by doing what ISPs have recognized is a bad idea, directly and obviously violate one of the 3 bright line tests. If ISPs really decided to only sell to VASPs, and require us to get the internet from those VASPs, either its going to be a competitive game, or a monopolistic one. If its a monopolistic one, the current FCC is unlikely to let that ride. If its a competitive one, someone is going to one up their competition by not violating the 3 'bright line' tests, and suddenly the entire dodge net neutrality game.
Again, what is hate speech? Mens rights activists attacking women in gaming certainly seems to qualify, but they will claim any discrimination against them is hate speech. Techdirt's "critics" claim that our calling the trolls is hate speech. Some would claim that criticizing the abusive policies enshrined in Shira law is hate speech. Some would claim that calling someone anti-choice is hate speech. The problem with "hate speech" is it is a subjective claim based on someone's feelings being hurt. To effectively outlaw hate speech without defining it as directed at a specific race or religion, you have to ban 'offensive' speech. And Techdirt and popehat has written again and again about the dangers of banning speech just because it is offensive.
Lying (aka false statements of fact) can be unprotected speech. See: libel and Defamation. Now, most of the time that is used, the speech is against a public figure for which there is a higher standard. And most of the 'lies' are actually protected statements of opinion no matter the subject of the lie.
First off im going to ignore that you addressed the ad hominim claim that anti abortionists tend to kill in america by performing a ad hominim attack on pro-abortionists. I would like to remind you that just because they did it, it does not make you doing it a correct debate tool.
So a "pro-life" group (National right to life) estimates 56 million abortions Total in america since roe v wade. I would link to the origuinal report but as you can see: http://imgur.com/8D2fpNK The '14 page' report is only a 2 page report with the data unreadable. So I have to work with the summary. It looks like they have used actual reporting data, so the numbers might even be in the ballpark. That still assumes that A) all those fetuses were viable, B)that all those fetuses would have made it full term and delivered successfully And C)that all those fetuses/children would have been properly cared for. Without solid statistics in this area we have no way of knowing if 56 million individuals were truly "sacrificed", and we know that not all of them were. Somehow in your head once there is conception there is an individual who will affect the world, but the honest truth is that studies have shown somewhere between 10-25% of confirmed pregnancies will fail. http://www.fitpregnancy.com/pregnancy/getting-pregnant/miscarriage-demystified, but in america its probably something closer to 10-15% http://womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/pregnancy-loss.html
So we can immediately reduce that number to around 50 million, which is still a lot, but 5.6 million individuals you claim were sacrificed were never to be born in the first place. and that ignores concerns that miscarriage and stillbirth could be more likely to occur amongst people whose economic and/or physical status is such that they do not want a child. for instance, a prostitute who gets pregnant and keeps it probably doesn't have the means to live to have that baby. And if she does, nothing guarantees that the abuse she takes wont cause a miscarriage.
The point being that even if the numbers your report has are correct, they do not state the number of 'unneccisary' abortions or even the number of abortions that would have produced a child. they state the total number of abortions, and that is not the number of children "sacrificed on the altar of women's rights".
Perhaps, instead of producing a vague general comment about how if we actually read the 'rule' we would understand, you could point us to the region of the rules that is problematic. That is what allows for debate, as seen in this article where the author highlights a lack of understanding of what is actually in the current rules. If you have a different problem with the current rules, tell us, rather then suggest we read a 51 page brief. Highlighting the key points would allow us to read those sections carefully and craft a response.
Secondly, they are regulating ISPs, not 'the internet'. I realize the distinction between the US corporation that provides you access to the internet and the large, worldwide network of servers owned by many different companies and governments, mostly not owned by your ISP, is hard to grasp, but please, stretch yourself.
And The legal challenges and the stay have been covered here. Notably, When the FCC tried to just impose some vague guidelines covering blocking, throttling and paid prioritization without title II that ISPs helped write, Verizon sued. Verizon couldn't handle the most minimalist of rules regarding Net Neutrality. The FCC was then told by the courts that it only had the power to impose those types of rules if it imposed title II. Title II is necessary for the net neutrality provisions, and if Title II goes away, the rules that the stay would leave in place would be gone too, because Verizon already got a court to say they couldn't be enforced without Title II. Notably, according to this article at least one opponent of the Title II change thinks the 3 'bright line' rules are a problem that he'll need a lawyer for, even though he didn't need one back when those the bright line rules were implemented under different authority.
Moreover, It does block one net neutrality rule, the one that blocks a big violation that is actually occurring and has repeatedly occurred. It would not leave in place the rules on unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage. This rule is critical for Net Neutrality and has already caused AT&T to stop discriminating against unlimited customers when the network isn't congested. You can hide a lot of 'blocking' and 'throttling' by disguising it as network management. This fourth rule is designed to counter that effort.
Ah. So you are one of the people who believe that corporations are people. Ok. You apparently also like to ignore the numerous legal distinctions made between corporations and people, which exist because they are not the same thing. Copyright treats a corporation differently then a person for instance. We also have a body of law designed to handle criminal penalties for corporations, because we can't treat a corporation like a person in criminal punishment, because they are inherently different.
Its a logical question. When a corporation speaks, who is actually doing the speaking. What is the source of that speech? The corporation has no will of its own, it can only act at the will of its employees, generally the will of its executives. This distiction of 'whom is doing the speech' can be seen often in the social media landscape. When facing a 'rogue' employee, his speech is readily distinguishable from the corporation's, even if his prior speech through the same channels were his own work, at his own direction, without significant input from his superiors. So who was talking?\
This question is important, because if the COrporation can only act on the initative of its executives, then is a political contribution not a political contribution made under someone else's name? Because that is an illegal donation. In fact, that very question has been debated amongst campaign finance experts because of a growing tendency to create shell LLCs or shell corporations designed to be the name plate on official reporting.
Newspapers, TV Networks and similar media companies, aside from ones which require anonymity, normally display who is speaking, along side the speech. In fact, it is often contractually mandated. If it was the corporation's speech being protected there, they wouldn't need to tell you whose speech it was.
The same protections now offered a corporation could be retained without requiring a corporation to have its own rights. The point of giving a corporation rights is to hide the names of the people actually doing the speech. PACs and SuperPACs destablize the political landscape by allowing those who pockets are big to speak more than those whose pockets are small. Moreover, they allow private individuals to hide their campaign contributions by donating most heavily in the last 3 months, when reporting wont happen until after the election. Not only can the targets of PAC or SuperPAC speech not determine who is speaking to them (For instance "The Coalition for Community-Driven Broadband" sounds far more consumer friendly then "The Coalition of AT&T, Comcast, and Time-Warner", as a rhetorical example), they often can not generate effective counter speech, though there has been progress in that regard.
Re: Re: Uh huh. But if you do and people are injured, you'll be sanctioned up to jail.
You know, I was signed in and responding to a specific comment when I began that rant. So people know, I, James Burkhardt, am the owner of the above rant, and I was responding to the AC with the above subject line.