Yes. Just look at how you engage in "voluntary compliance with your tax obligations" every year so that the Internal Revenue Service does not decide to take everything you own. It's all completely voluntary. Failing to do it just means your life is ruined. Nothing big.
Yes sir, there's a terrorist behind every kb. Pounding away at the keys, creating harvoc where ever they go. Must be terrible for the Senate Intelligence Committee knowing they need to hide behind a bush some where because all those kb warriors are out and about the internet.
So now you see where the corruption is and who is paying the money. No wonder the MPAA is always hunting more money. They spend it all on bribery. This isn't helping the AGs at all. It's making them look just as they are. It also tells you what state the justice system is when you get a dog pile like this.
This is a great way to encourage sites that already monitor for terroristy stuff to stop monitoring their sites before the law passes. Then they can say, within the law, that they aren't bound by it; and F-U very much if you don't like it.
How many of these folks are also worried about the impact of government regulations in other industries? I seem to keep hearing about politicians complaining that the good old fashioned industries, like building cars, buildings, and producing energy, need less government regulations. Somehow tech is different, even though those other industries make things that can directly impact our health and well being. Personal privacy, on the other hand, is somehow different.
"But ultimately this is a higher-tech version of ‘See something, say something.’ And in that sense, I believe that there is value."
Another way to take down things you don't like. Just SWAT them. I mean, if you complain to a provider that a post is by a "suspected terrorist", what provider is going to take a chance and leave it up? Who's to say if someone is a suspected terrorist or not? Sometimes it seems like almost everyone is.
Re: For those interested, participating AGs (per the PDF):
To all of the above State AGs that signed the brief...
The activities that you are supporting are illegal. If you continue to support / condone the illegal activities, then you will be charged with criminal conspiracy, aiding and abetting a known felon (Hood), criminal mischief, and all-around fucktardery.
Pull your heads from your asses and prosecute the law as it's written, not as you want it to be.
The current law clearly and undeniably states that sites, like google, are not responsible for what the "people" aka "users" post / place on web sites.
It's called Safe-Harbor - you might want to look it up before you commit political suicide as well as getting put up in the 1 star prison of your state's choice.
Hello, greetings to everyone i am here to inform you about Mrs. Helena Loan Home, the organization is out here to offer all kinds of financial assistance to every individual no matter the condition of your financial status, below are the types of loan offered thanks.
We Offer The Following Kinds Of Loans Personal Loans (Secure and Unsecured) Business Loans (Secure and Unsecured) Consolidation Loan -Low Down or Zero Money Financing Program Available at 2% rate Contact EMAIL: email@example.com
FIRST INFORMATION'S NEEDED ARE:
Full Names: Country/State: Location: Age: Contact Phone numbers: Amount Needed: Loan Duration: Purpose of Loan: thanks and God bless.
Zero rating - can someone explain why it violates net neutrality?
I get the concept: "...zero rating favors some sites over others based on the broadband provider’s preferences (not the users’)". OK, but so what? How is this against the interests of the end user? Should we ban 1-800 phone numbers as well?
I also understand the argument that in the long term the sites which can afford to sponsor their own data traffic might win out over smaller sites which can't afford to do so, which therefore reduces competition. But isn't that just business? Should we prevent those bigger sites from advertising as well, because they can get an unfair competitive advantage from having larger advertising budgets?
I genuinely want to know if there is a real argument against zero rating, rather than just a whole load of negative sentiment against big corporates whom we all love to hate...