I am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
11–20 of 20 posts
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#12I am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
I don’t think you’re shadowbanned - at least, I can see your comment
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#13I am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
If existing regulations already solved the issues, then you wouldn't see existing ISPs giving unlimited data as long as you are using their special pet services or partner services.
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#14If someone submits a comment and impersonates you, can they be sued for one of slander/libel/defamation?
Can they also be sued for identify theft?
If someone can be sued for making a false statement about you, why not when they willfully and knowingly steal your identify to make others believe you did something that you didn’t?
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#15[deleted]
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#16I am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
You are not shadowbanned, people probably just disagree with you
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#17I am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
I don’t think you’re shadowbanned - at least, I can see your comment
everyone can lmao
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#18I am of the 20% I guess. My argument, which I can go into more (but only on demand: I believe I am shadowbanned so I need some proof otherwise before putting forth such effort), is that the Net Neutrality advocates did not recognize that existing regulation already addresses the concerns.
If existing regulations already solved the issues, then you wouldn't see existing ISPs giving unlimited data as long as you are using their special pet services or partner services.
But not to the explicit exclusion of other data streams, which was the primary concern of most proponents. And the mechanisms for implicitly excluded providers does already exist for them to challenge any such exclusion, were it to be proven.
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#19I've been pondering the problem this plays into. It's likely that at least some portion of the remaining 20% of commenters were influenced by the fakes. Those people could see the techcrunch article as bogus, fake news.
I wonder how we can somehow slow (slower than fact) disinfo and test information for credibility. People's GPUs are gonna spin up an information hellscape.
Where can I find the solutions that show promise so I can advocate for them? The outlook is depressing.
Re: 80% of the 22M comments on net neutrality rollback were fake
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
If existing regulations already solved the issues, then you wouldn't see existing ISPs giving unlimited data as long as you are using their special pet services or partner services.
But not to the explicit exclusion of other data streams, which was the primary concern of most proponents. And the mechanisms for implicitly excluded providers does already exist for them to challenge any such exclusion, were it to be proven.
That wasn't the only concern. If you only give free data for certain services because they are a) already very popular or b) have enough money to pay for it, then you create a huge moat for the incumbents and make it much more difficult for any new, better alternatives to compete.