You aren't replying to Will B. I'm Will B., I didn't make the above post (obviously if you compare writing styles) and I'd appreciate it if you didn't buy into obvious bullshit. :)
Guess I'll be logging in for a while now. Not that anyone should really mistake this asshat for me when he uses terms like "The Masnick" and talks about "globalists" (nice dog-whistle, racist).
It's kind of amazing that they have co-opted hate crime laws, considering how many police have unjustly assaulted or murdered minority folks without being tried under those same laws.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way around; if I assault someone who TURNS OUT TO BE a police officer, and I didn't know that,I guarantee they will twist things around to nail me with a hate crime regardless.
Buddy, you are in no position to be critiquing grammar in the article. Also, while pointing out a typo is fine, trying to use it to suggest that the article was written by an AI (what? Seriously?) is just... bizarre.
[P.S. I am hoping I get a visit from a very special AC...]
...if you're going to stand here and say there's "no evidence" after all the evidence that has been noted in practically every Techdirt article on the subject, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of debating in very, very bad faith.
Except that in this case, it is protectionism - but only if you can notice the subtleties. You see, banning municipal broadband and public-private partnerships is not protectionism for the municipal broadband or the partnerships, but it is protectionism for the incumbents. They're being protected from competition; hence why they fight for these sorts of rules. Specific definitions are rarely helpful in politics. Nuance is key, and the devil is always in the details.
I agree with most of this post, but I do firmly believe that the first-past-the-post system contributes heavily to the two party problem; strategic voting, much as I hate it, is the result of the winner-take-all approach. You are right, though, that the president doesn't matter nearly as much as our country seems to think he does. If you ask me, the biggest issue in our political system is gerrymandering; you can't forget that it's not 100% our fault when the system is -actively rigged- to create no-competition districts for certain politicians.
"So if your argument is that Pai should not have the power to roll the rules back, you have to accept that Wheeler didn't have the power to create them."
That is not our argument.
We aren't arguing that Pai doesn't have the power to roll back the rules. We are arguing that he doesn't have the evidence to support his position, the justification to roll back the rules, the logical arguments to support his position. The FCC (not Pai, incidentally, but THE FCC) has the power to roll back the rules, but they do still require a reason to do so; hence the constant references to the court battle that will inevitably take place after the rules are rolled back. People who suggest that this is an "empty fight" not worth fighting are little more than closet supporters of this rollback trying to demoralize those of us still standing up for net neutrality. It's a pretty common tactic; we're not impressed, and we're not going to shut up.
Uhh... how is making a law that prevents local government from creating a competing service (and does not, lemme remind you, *prevent* any corporate ISP from operating in the area) "free up" the market?
On the contrary, the fact that they have a single famous client can A) inform you on what sort of clients they are willing to take and defend, and B) tell you what sort of people think they are worth hiring to defend them or prosecute on their behalf.
Look, I was trying to be brief in my response. First of all, I'm not the only one who has replied to you; an AC further down in the reply chain gave you the perfect answer already. "Kasowitz Benson Torres Loses Massive RICO SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace, But Has Another One Already Going". Once again, Thad, I am not disagreeing with you that the reference to Trump is pretty well justified here. I'm just saying that the question you posed seems pretty easy to answer and doesn't really make the point I think you're trying to make.
But if you meant 'equivalent,' then you're not paying attention to what he said. No, going without internet service isn't the same as losing one's job; but his whole point was that going without internet service WOULD LEAD TO losing his job. They're not equivalent, they're a procession of cause and effect. This is what people are trying to explain: You CAN go without water, you CAN go without electricity, you CAN go without automotive transportation, but these things are so central to our modern lives that going without them is not a REALISTIC option, even if it is a REAL option we do have. The contention here is that internet has reached the same level of importance and ubiquity in modern life.
Hi.
You aren't replying to Will B. I'm Will B., I didn't make the above post (obviously if you compare writing styles) and I'd appreciate it if you didn't buy into obvious bullshit. :)
Oh, how cute.
Someone is trying to utilize my name.
Guess I'll be logging in for a while now. Not that anyone should really mistake this asshat for me when he uses terms like "The Masnick" and talks about "globalists" (nice dog-whistle, racist).
Re:
It's kind of amazing that they have co-opted hate crime laws, considering how many police have unjustly assaulted or murdered minority folks without being tried under those same laws.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way around; if I assault someone who TURNS OUT TO BE a police officer, and I didn't know that,I guarantee they will twist things around to nail me with a hate crime regardless.
Re:
Your daily reminder to not feed the trolls!
[Pls ignore the hypocrisy, I know I am feedin trolls elsewhere, do as I say not as I do :p]
Re: Even if were orthogonally spelled "breathleesly-loyal" isn't intelligible.
By minion? Is a minor surprise? Dimly recall?
Buddy, you are in no position to be critiquing grammar in the article. Also, while pointing out a typo is fine, trying to use it to suggest that the article was written by an AI (what? Seriously?) is just... bizarre.
[P.S. I am hoping I get a visit from a very special AC...]
Re: Re: Re:
...if you're going to stand here and say there's "no evidence" after all the evidence that has been noted in practically every Techdirt article on the subject, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of debating in very, very bad faith.
Re: Re:
Except that in this case, it is protectionism - but only if you can notice the subtleties. You see, banning municipal broadband and public-private partnerships is not protectionism for the municipal broadband or the partnerships, but it is protectionism for the incumbents. They're being protected from competition; hence why they fight for these sorts of rules.
Specific definitions are rarely helpful in politics. Nuance is key, and the devil is always in the details.
Re:
Bah, that was meant to be a reply to vikingvista above, and was poorly typed out. Should have been "which does not" instead of "and does not".
Fascist
You keep using that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with most of this post, but I do firmly believe that the first-past-the-post system contributes heavily to the two party problem; strategic voting, much as I hate it, is the result of the winner-take-all approach.
You are right, though, that the president doesn't matter nearly as much as our country seems to think he does. If you ask me, the biggest issue in our political system is gerrymandering; you can't forget that it's not 100% our fault when the system is -actively rigged- to create no-competition districts for certain politicians.
Re:
"So if your argument is that Pai should not have the power to roll the rules back, you have to accept that Wheeler didn't have the power to create them."
That is not our argument.
We aren't arguing that Pai doesn't have the power to roll back the rules. We are arguing that he doesn't have the evidence to support his position, the justification to roll back the rules, the logical arguments to support his position. The FCC (not Pai, incidentally, but THE FCC) has the power to roll back the rules, but they do still require a reason to do so; hence the constant references to the court battle that will inevitably take place after the rules are rolled back.
People who suggest that this is an "empty fight" not worth fighting are little more than closet supporters of this rollback trying to demoralize those of us still standing up for net neutrality. It's a pretty common tactic; we're not impressed, and we're not going to shut up.
Uhh... how is making a law that prevents local government from creating a competing service (and does not, lemme remind you, *prevent* any corporate ISP from operating in the area) "free up" the market?
Re: Re: TDS
On the contrary, the fact that they have a single famous client can A) inform you on what sort of clients they are willing to take and defend, and B) tell you what sort of people think they are worth hiring to defend them or prosecute on their behalf.
Re: Re: Re: Why the Anti-Trump whining
Look, I was trying to be brief in my response. First of all, I'm not the only one who has replied to you; an AC further down in the reply chain gave you the perfect answer already. "Kasowitz Benson Torres Loses Massive RICO SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace, But Has Another One Already Going".
Once again, Thad, I am not disagreeing with you that the reference to Trump is pretty well justified here. I'm just saying that the question you posed seems pretty easy to answer and doesn't really make the point I think you're trying to make.
Re: Re: None of this is 'equitable'
I meant water as in the utility. You don't -need- it piped to your house.
None of this is 'equitable'
But if you meant 'equivalent,' then you're not paying attention to what he said. No, going without internet service isn't the same as losing one's job; but his whole point was that going without internet service WOULD LEAD TO losing his job. They're not equivalent, they're a procession of cause and effect.
This is what people are trying to explain: You CAN go without water, you CAN go without electricity, you CAN go without automotive transportation, but these things are so central to our modern lives that going without them is not a REALISTIC option, even if it is a REAL option we do have. The contention here is that internet has reached the same level of importance and ubiquity in modern life.
Everyone...
...please, don't feed the trolls.
Re: Re: Re: You did it again!
Yes... and? Just because there's a "correct" answer to the scenario doesn't mean the saying makes no sense.
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, the plural of Elvis is Elvi?