Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
1–10 of 99 posts
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#2> However, if you go to his house on 11 Tee Pee Row, you will unfortunately speak to a kind person who will tell you that John has been passed away since 2016 and no one else there has the same name.
This is my new favorite name for a residential street.
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#3> However, if you go to his house on 11 Tee Pee Row, you will unfortunately speak to a kind person who will tell you that John has been passed away since 2016 and no one else there has the same name. This is my new favorite name for a residential street.
I'm partial to Five Card Draw. The street, not the game. Now how do I get dead people to vote for things I want?
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#4I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers.
These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws.
I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing "offense" or transmitting "obscene" material gives the federal government an excuse to prosecute you.
Suddenly, posting on 4chan can get you thrown in prison.
Edit: found it[0], I dont understand why no one is aware of this. I plead that you take a moment to check the link, as this is a dangerous extension of government power, especially in combination with current surveillence.
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#5I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…
I've been trying to tell people this for a while - I do believe in net neutrality, but the title II classification is a boondoggle, and those laws need serious rewrite. I'm not seriously concerned about getting arrested for downloading pornography - When was the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for shouting "Fuck!" over the phone? - But I am concerned that those laws were written for Bell Telephone, and survived the breakup and re-integration of the Baby Bells. I don't think they're at all a good fit for how the internet works.
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#6I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…
Weren't they re-classified as telecoms so that the FCC would be able to regulate them at all?
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#7I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…
You're not shilling, you're just wrong. Its requirement is to be obscene with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person which is a strong safeguard most people want. It prevents revenge porn and the like. Not all porn.
Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sky-is-falling everyone-goes-to-prison since it's hard to prove you know recipients of an anonymous message board.
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#8I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…
I've been trying to tell people this for a while - I do believe in net neutrality, but the title II classification is a boondoggle, and those laws need serious rewrite. I'm not seriously concerned about getting arrested for downloading pornography - When was the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for shouting "Fuck!" over the phone? - But I am concerned that those laws were written for Bell Telephone, an…
These laws are dangerous because they are vague enough to give the government a free pass to legally target almost anyone who uses the internet.
It is another means to possibly silence whistleblowers and/or opposition.
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#9> However, if you go to his house on 11 Tee Pee Row, you will unfortunately speak to a kind person who will tell you that John has been passed away since 2016 and no one else there has the same name. This is my new favorite name for a residential street.
I'm partial to Five Card Draw. The street, not the game. Now how do I get dead people to vote for things I want?
Funny you say that. I used to drive by that street on the way to school.
Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
#10I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…
I've been trying to tell people this for a while - I do believe in net neutrality, but the title II classification is a boondoggle, and those laws need serious rewrite. I'm not seriously concerned about getting arrested for downloading pornography - When was the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for shouting "Fuck!" over the phone? - But I am concerned that those laws were written for Bell Telephone, an…
It seems to me the Internet has been tamed, by in large. But it has to do more with the overlord companies swallowing most of it, and then subjecting everyone to their own regulations. Even if you're on the outside, you can't exist without services that require you to play by their rules (or virtues).