Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't claim there wasn't a difference. But what is the principle?
You haven't followed the debate? In a nutshell: Internet service providers have a monopoly in many locales, or something very close to it. (There are good technical and market-driven reasons for that, too.) And as the consumer cannot possibly know what backbone providers carry his traffic, there is no way for market mechanisms to work. And so we have operated under a model of neutrality, where an IP packet is handled the same way, no matter its source, destination or content.
This has been a massive boon to Internet penetration, because people with a presence on the Internet compete on an even footing. As in, this instance: Prisonplanet pops up in your browser just like Google.
Comoanies with a presence on the Internet, on the other hand, are of course free to do business with whom they want. That goes for Google or for Al's Auto Parts in Minnesota or Prisonplanet.
You can compare it to the USPS - who'll carry pretty much any information inside an envelope - and the New York Times, who decides what to print in today's issue. One is neutral, one isn't.
Companies with a presence on the Internet, on the other hand, are of course free to do business with whom they want. That goes for Google or for Al's Auto Parts in Minnesota or Prisonplanet.
Did you read anything I wrote? I asked a specific question. Would lefties feel the same way if Google and Facebook were censoring left-wing speakers instead of right-wing speakers? Yes or no?
As you know, lefties have long been opposed to the idea that private-companies have the right to deny service to anyone, for any reason. And they have especially been concerned about corporations becoming too powerful.
Is Google too powerful? Is Facebook too powerful?
I have no interest in having a debate about government regulation. I was merely pointing-out the hypocrisy of both the left and the right. Who love something when it suits them, and then hate it when it doesn't.
I asked a specific question. Would lefties feel the same way if Google and Facebook were censoring left-wing speakers instead of right-wing speakers? Yes or no?
Who cares about feelings? We're dealing in something akin to principles. Or should be.
Quote:
Is Google too powerful? Is Facebook too powerful?
I have no interest in having a debate about government regulation.
These sentences are kinda contradictory.
Quote:
I was merely pointing-out the hypocrisy of both the left and the right. Who love something when it suits them, and then hate it when it doesn't.
Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superior to both sides of the debate, I guess it's mission accomplished.
The actual hearing is something to behold. Members of Congress know nothing about technology, with the possible exception of Ted Lieu. The Republicans, in particular, are convinced of skullduggery and underhandedness, although they're still on "series of tubes" level of understanding.
Power in America comes only from influence(IE changing what people think).
Social-media(including forums) are a kind of propaganda. Which is why many international corporations and government agencies pay people to post on social-media.
Your goal here is to influence, just the same as any other organization who attempts to affect public-opinion and public-policy. And you aren't alone. That is what everyone else is doing as well.
And that is why people on social-media become so stupid, hypocritical, and dishonest. Because that is how you get what you want.
Being honest and consistent is a liability. Politicians don't lie because they're bad people. They lie because they want to get elected. If we actually wanted honest politicians, we would have them.
"Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we inquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan of Egypt, or the emperor of Rome, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion." - David Hume
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-11-2018 at 01:42 PM..
The "Monopoly Man" is hilarious!!
A live Meme in the hearing... on camera.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
