"... and when that happens the rebroadcast of tv shows and signals will become a norm of the internet."
Um. Every tv show in existence is uploaded as a commercial-free mkv/mp4/pickyourformat file within a day of being aired already. Their objections have nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with losing their insanely profitable rental fee income.
Much like "intellectual property", which is stupid on the face of it, I think he means that it amounts to a contradiction in terms. He is suggesting that you can't appropriate culture. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand what he means.
"So if I cover my ears when you talk, am I engaging in censorship?"
Well, that depends. If I am a millennial, then absolutely, you are engaging in censorship. Not listening to anything I have to say is oppression. Unless I'm in my safe space, in which case you aren't even allowed to be here.
While I agree that the existing "standard" is low, it's pretty arbitrary for the FCC to suddenly decide 25 meg is the standard.
How do you figure? Just because they didn't supply *you* personally with all of the data and/or research they may have used to arrive at that figure, it's arbitrary? You don't think maybe they looked around at, just for instance, the rest of the civilized world? You do know that the US is basically in the stone age of broadband, compared to other first world countries?
Wtf, dude. This is not complicated. Of course people can organize to try to enact peaceful political change. BUT. This should not give them the right or power to essentially bypass all campaign funding restrictions by pretending that donated money is coming from a corporation (which is a legal FICTION) versus from powerful rich people. If a person wants to contribute financially to a politician, then they can do so, personally and legally.