Serious [Access to this thread is restricted to SMOGON GOLD subscribers only] (aka Net neutrality thread)


Lmao sucked in lads, USA contiously proving that it is a country in decline with a system that encourages the government to kowtow to the scummiest companies leader of the free world
 

Adamant Zoroark

catchy catchphrase
is a Contributor Alumnus
Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very well
This isn’t about socialism. Also, I didn’t feel like the post said don’t ever say “the market will sort itself out”; just don’t make that your main argument; for one, it just shows a lack of understanding of what Internet availability looks like in the US (especially rural areas, where you’re gonna have at best one high-speed provider)

In any case, time to watch the court cases play out (New York AG filed suit within minutes and several states hopped on board). In the mean time, alarmism helps absolutely no one. As many others have said, alarmism does more harm than good because it just gives the other side leverage in the debate (“they said this would happen and it didn’t”). Concern is justified because anyone who actually knows what net neutrality is knows how important it is, but please, don’t let it turn into alarmism.

Talking to you Twitter

EDIT: I’d like to share this dumb tweet from an editor of The Libertarian Republic:
Holy shit, so many points missed. For one, shipping is NOT A FUCKING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very well
Yeah, remember back when Rockefeller Oil, Carnegie Steel, and the railroad conglomorates basically ran the entirety of the country? Just because the market is free doesn't mean consumers will be adequately protected.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
america: where the people are only free because republicans define corporations as people too

I wouldn't be too worried about net neutrality vote, not for the reasons that others have outlined such as "oh we'll only go back to pre-2015 era internet!" (lol remember when AT&T blocked certain features such as downloading more than 50 mb of an application or blocking facetime for no reason?) but for legal reasons. Listen up chicklets, there's something called a Congressional Review Act (CRA) that basically allows elected officials in Congress to nullify actions by the FCC (or other federal agencies for that matter like idk the EPA??). The CRA only requires a simply majority to override rather than a supermajority. Now you guys see how important it was to get that Alabama senate seat for Democrats? We're already starting at 49 / 51 and with senators like Susan Collins among others coming out against the net neutrality repealment its likely that such stuff could get repealed in the Senate (House is a different story but if you plaster your representatives with that text RESIST type stuff enough they'll give in. Or you just vote them out and net neutrality becomes a basic campaign point for Dems in 2018 continuing the left swing that was started by AL and VA). Not only that, several states Attorney Generals are already starting to sue such as New York or Massachusetts. Washington has also thrown their hat in the ring in sueing over this decision, because when ~85% of people, both conservative and liberal, want to keep the net neutrality rule and the FCC chairman basically just spits on the democratic process then you really have a situation on your hands.

What can u do in your part to help? Ignore the people say "stop freaking out" and actually freak the fuck out. Start talking to your parents / friends / colleagues / body pillows about how insane it is to repeal this. Explain to them that the internet isn't a commodity for people to chokehold and "let the market decide" like some retards want to think and show how in today's fast paced world information gets everywhere and you can no longer be educated and well informed in the to-do of the world without quality internet access. Failing that, default to how porn sites will go back to before redtube or pornhub where you had to pay 30+ bucks to get a subscription or be lucky enough to find your parent's lewds. The whole "the market will sort itself out" puts a shitton of faith in corporations like Verizon and Comcast that have proven they will screw over the regular consumer at every given opportunity; how can you expect those corporations to "fix" themselves by a lowering of demand when Comcast bullies out any other startup? Those that preach free market bullshit sound like they took a couple classes in basic econ and stopped going to class right before they got into elasticity of goods and services. Hint, internet access in today's climate is an inelastic good meaning that people often have to pay whatever the fuck Comcast says to pay because there quite literally are no other options outside of manually wiring internet access for yourself. Don't worry too much, as I personally think this decision will prove to be unconstitutional (hell its blatant embezzlement..) and at the least massive attention will be brought to it via the large amounts of states that will start suing. (Something something states rights party bans the ability for states to make their own net neutrality rofl) Failing even that, Democrats will use this to build their 2018 platform, continuing the blue wave thats already started rolling through most states. Statute of limitations is five years iirc, Ajit Pai will get his due.
 
I'm very disappointed but not surprised by the ultimate decision, money > constituents seems to be the trend in congress, at least currently. What I'm curious about is how easy/difficult a return to net neutrality laws would be if a democrat is elected in 2020. Will it be as simple as just reestablishing old rules or will the damage already be done? I'm definitely going to be voting democrat for this and many, many other reasons in 2018/20, but I'm still unsure if a win in those elections would bring these rules back.
 
Last edited:

hyw

Banned deucer.
Can someone explain to me in plain English how this will negatively affect the average American?
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Can someone explain to me in plain English how this will negatively affect the average American?
Do you like Netflix? Would you like it if your internet company slowed down your Netflix or blocked it completely until you paid another fee, in addition to you paying for internet service & paying for a Netflix subscription? How about if you could get Hulu just fine, but Netflix is throttled instead?

It's a way for internet service providers to extract more money from you.
 
You're missing the key point, Orch. Net Neutrality was coming closer to being a law and actually enforceable, but with its removal we now have these vague "rules" which will attempt to stop ISPs from doing what they want, but wont. Here's a juicy line from the same place you quoted from.
236. Transparency, competition, antitrust, and consumer protection laws achieve similar benefits as conduct rules at lower cost. The effect of the transparency rule we adopt is that ISP practices that involve blocking, throttling, and other behavior that may give rise to openness concerns will be disclosed to the Commission and the public.846 As the Commission found in the Open Internet Order, “disclosure increases the likelihood that broadband providers will abide by open Internet principles, and that the Internet community will identify problematic conduct and suggest fixes . . . thereby increas[ing] the chances that harmful practices will not occur in the first place and that, if they do, they will be quickly remedied.”847
They're relying on this transparency "rule" to discourage ISPs from throttling. Are you forgetting about the fact that some places only have 1 or 2 ISPs? They have a monopoly on the business and releasing their throttling schemes to the public literally does not affect them. They could still charge money for someone to access important information and it would still fly. Especially since it's fucking hard to start an ISP and as a result they have no competition.

It's only illegal NOT to disclose their practises. This means they can throttle, charge, and undermine competition as much as they want as long as they disclose this information.

EDIT: Orch deleted his post? Cool. Anyway, to summarise, the key points here are that not enough competition exists, and repealing NN =/= new, much needed laws.

They're relying on old, 20th century laws to prevent ISPs from doing what they want which obviously leaves room for modern day loopholes
 
Last edited:

Yung Dramps

awesome gaming
Anyone who seriously thinks Ajit Pai's plan will make it through Congress and the countless lawsuits is delusional and insane. This was a terrible plan, yes, completely anti-consumer, yes, but I'm not worried at all, because there is basically little to no chance of this even getting past the senate. Congress is corrupt to hell, yes, but they still need to get re-elected, and they already fucked up with healthcare. This is an issue many people are going to be paying close attention to in the next couple of months, and some congressmen may even see this as their opportunity to politically save face after the aforementioned health care fiasco. And if this somehow makes it through congress, the lawsuits will stop it. Who would win: some plucky isps, or an alliance of the biggest corporations in the world? Yeah, I thought so, too.
 
Last edited:

PDC

street spirit fade out
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
some plucky isps, or an alliance of the biggest corporations in the world? Yeah, I thought so, too.
mutual victory as these are the exact same thing

i don't think that there is much delusion in paying attention or being alert. the privatization of public platforms of communication and resource has been occurring for a long time, and in the future it wouldn't shock me at all to see net neutrality completely erased. keep in mind the supporters of this law doesn't include specifically corporations or elitist senators; average republican voters believe in ted cruz's free market nonsense or just don't care enough to fight it.

even an attempt to wage war on information and class should be met with vigilance and immediate response. i don't care if the actual threat of it is minuscule. the threat and attempt is what matters.
 

Yung Dramps

awesome gaming
average republican voters believe in ted cruz's free market nonsense or just don't care enough to fight it.
Where's the evidence of this? I have no doubt these people exist, but they are an extreme minority in this scenario. I mean, seriously, when a good chunk of fucking /pol/ is questioning the actions of their god king Trump, that should show you that this is serious. Again, there really are people who buy into unregulated capitalism and "the market will solve itself" (which is horse shit), but they are not this huge, dangerous group, at least not when it comes to NN.

even an attempt to wage war on information and class should be met with vigilance and immediate response. i don't care if the actual threat of it is minuscule. the threat and attempt is what matters.
This "vigilance" and "immediate response" are the exact reasons why I consider it highly unlikely the FCC's proposal will gain any legal traction. From state lawsuits, to condemnation from our #1 trade partner Canada, who even STRENGTHENED their laws as an act of defiance, which is insane considering they have their own cable monopoly (basically 2 companies controlling everything).

in the future it wouldn't shock me at all to see net neutrality completely erased.
NN disappearing when there have already been a multitude of attempts to take it down since its inception in 2015, every single one of which has failed? NN disappearing when countries like India and the aforementioned Canada have improved their laws in just the past few years? K E K
 
Where's the evidence of this? I have no doubt these people exist, but they are an extreme minority in this scenario. I mean, seriously, when a good chunk of fucking /pol/ is questioning the actions of their god king Trump, that should show you that this is serious. Again, there really are people who buy into unregulated capitalism and "the market will solve itself" (which is horse shit), but they are not this huge, dangerous group, at least not when it comes to NN.



This "vigilance" and "immediate response" are the exact reasons why I consider it highly unlikely the FCC's proposal will gain any legal traction. From state lawsuits, to condemnation from our #1 trade partner Canada, who even STRENGTHENED their laws as an act of defiance, which is insane considering they have their own cable monopoly (basically 2 companies controlling everything).



NN disappearing when there have already been a multitude of attempts to take it down since its inception in 2015, every single one of which has failed? NN disappearing when countries like India and the aforementioned Canada have improved their laws in just the past few years? K E K
There might not be evidence of a libertarian majority, but you certainly can't use internet message boards as an indicator of political opinions either.

America does not have to care about what the rest of the world is doing in response, which is true for almost everything anyway. They really only have to care about lawsuits, which take years to come to fruition, and congress has more reason to oppose NN than to support it.

The difference is that now it's not really an "attempt" to take it down, it has kind of surpassed the bar set by smaller attempts in 2015, by

a) being actually approved by the FCC
b) being supported by billion dollar companies
c) not having a democrat in office
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Anyone who seriously thinks Ajit Pai's plan will make it through Congress and the countless lawsuits is delusional and insane. This was a terrible plan, yes, completely anti-consumer, yes, but I'm not worried at all, because there is basically little to no chance of this even getting past the senate. Congress is corrupt to hell, yes, but they still need to get re-elected, and they already fucked up with healthcare. This is an issue many people are going to be paying close attention to in the next couple of months, and some congressmen may even see this as their opportunity to politically save face after the aforementioned health care fiasco. And if this somehow makes it through congress, the lawsuits will stop it. Who would win: some plucky isps, or an alliance of the biggest corporations in the world? Yeah, I thought so, too.
What exactly makes you think it won't get past the senate? 1) breaking from partisan support is much more of a death sentence than supporting an unpopular bill that is also supported by your donors and biggest lobbying corporations. 2) Many senators are not up for reelection any time soon. In fact, in 2018 only 8 republicans are actually up for reelection. Of the 33 senators that are up for midterms, 23 are Democrat and 2 are Independent that almost certainly will vote against the bill. That you think net neutrality will be the straw that turncoats some republicans to go against the herd and not support pedophilia or obstruction of justice with respect to the russia investigation is laughable. The state lawsuits will eventually stop it possibly but it would more than likely end up being a case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court on whether this sort of blatant anti-populist order is constitutional or not, but even then you have to remember that the current right wing regime has stacked the courts with other right wing "in the pocket" judges that are simply placeholders to stop any progressive movement for the coming decades. No matter what the will of the people is, it falters before the will of the judiciary branch unless the people actually get active, in the streets French Revolution style.

You act as if because India or Canada or the UN doing something has any impact on what a right wing controlled America will do, when in reality most supporters of conservatism would praise literally doing the opposite of India / Canada / UN for "sticking it to those globalist bastards and doing things the American way WOOOOO RIC FLAIR." Your naivete in response to the courts protecting against net neutrality is funny, despite lower courts currently being stacked against any sort of progressive movement and specific measures being taken in the repealment to prevent states' from setting up their local net neutrality laws (so much for states' rights lol....). Lastly, PDC's point was not that all republicans are all supporters of Adam Smith's free market bullshit but more that mixed in with those who actually buy into it are those who are simply apathetic enough or uninformed enough to not care. Voter apathy is a very real problem (and I'm certain I need no actual source for this as its common knowledge...) and most people simply aren't going to care that we might lose the internet we know and love. You really think if net neutrality is repealed that conservatives (aka the largest armed civilian militia available......) are going to march en masse to protect their furry porn and the_donald memes?
 

Yung Dramps

awesome gaming
What exactly makes you think it won't get past the senate? 1) breaking from partisan support is much more of a death sentence than supporting an unpopular bill that is also supported by your donors and biggest lobbying corporations. 2) Many senators are not up for reelection any time soon. In fact, in 2018 only 8 republicans are actually up for reelection. Of the 33 senators that are up for midterms, 23 are Democrat and 2 are Independent that almost certainly will vote against the bill. That you think net neutrality will be the straw that turncoats some republicans to go against the herd and not support pedophilia or obstruction of justice with respect to the russia investigation is laughable. The state lawsuits will eventually stop it possibly but it would more than likely end up being a case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court on whether this sort of blatant anti-populist order is constitutional or not, but even then you have to remember that the current right wing regime has stacked the courts with other right wing "in the pocket" judges that are simply placeholders to stop any progressive movement for the coming decades. No matter what the will of the people is, it falters before the will of the judiciary branch unless the people actually get active, in the streets French Revolution style.

You act as if because India or Canada or the UN doing something has any impact on what a right wing controlled America will do, when in reality most supporters of conservatism would praise literally doing the opposite of India / Canada / UN for "sticking it to those globalist bastards and doing things the American way WOOOOO RIC FLAIR." Your naivete in response to the courts protecting against net neutrality is funny, despite lower courts currently being stacked against any sort of progressive movement and specific measures being taken in the repealment to prevent states' from setting up their local net neutrality laws (so much for states' rights lol....). Lastly, PDC's point was not that all republicans are all supporters of Adam Smith's free market bullshit but more that mixed in with those who actually buy into it are those who are simply apathetic enough or uninformed enough to not care. Voter apathy is a very real problem (and I'm certain I need no actual source for this as its common knowledge...) and most people simply aren't going to care that we might lose the internet we know and love. You really think if net neutrality is repealed that conservatives (aka the largest armed civilian militia available......) are going to march en masse to protect their furry porn and the_donald memes?
1. I am perfectly aware that the U.S. does not have to listen to other countries. The way PDC phrased it made it seem like he was saying that in the future, net neutrality will be wiped off the face of the earth. Sorry for the confusion.

2. In a way, the NN case going to the Supreme Court could at least ensure that we keep it for a few more years. ISPs are greedy, but they aren't stupid. While the escalating lawsuit goes on, they will more than likely not even try to impose anything ridiculous on customers so they can maintain a good image in the courts. And if what you say about lawsuits taking years is true, then by the time it ends, we may very well have already reached the 2020 elections, and if the blue wave going on across America is any indication, Mr. Trump's shots at re-election look kinda shaky. But that's still a while away, we don't have any idea what the Democrats got in store for candidates, and we can't even be sure if the Democrats' popularity boost will last 'till then, but yeah, you get the idea.

Overall, I'm still confident that NN will stick around long enough to where the future Democrats may be able to put this fight to rest.
 

BP

Beers and Steers
is a Contributor to Smogon
Because of Net Neutrality leaving I've developed a SERIOUS question that I want to ask in this thread. A large number of adolescents are depressed and find comfort on the internet talking to people who share the same background and sometimes even the same situations they are in. Because some families or adolescents won't be able to afford some websites due to whatever reason. I ask you do you think there will be slight increase in suicide of Adolescent children because of this?
 
Because of Net Neutrality leaving I've developed a SERIOUS question that I want to ask in this thread. A large number of adolescents are depressed and find comfort on the internet talking to people who share the same background and sometimes even the same situations they are in. Because some families or adolescents won't be able to afford some websites due to whatever reason. I ask you do you think there will be slight increase in suicide of Adolescent children because of this?
In the short term, maybe, In the grand scheme of things, no. This just forces kids to go out and play more which will drop the suicide rate in the long term. But again thats under the assumption that ISPs will increase their prices that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BP
Because of Net Neutrality leaving I've developed a SERIOUS question that I want to ask in this thread. A large number of adolescents are depressed and find comfort on the internet talking to people who share the same background and sometimes even the same situations they are in. Because some families or adolescents won't be able to afford some websites due to whatever reason. I ask you do you think there will be slight increase in suicide of Adolescent children because of this?
The Internet causes as much depression as it cures. Smogon is a good environment for LGBT and mental disorder crowd generally, but the internal politics and cliques that exist don't do anyone any favors. Social Media in particular makes depression much worse because everybody else you went to high school with looks like they're ALWAYS doing something cool when they are really not. But it gives the illusion that they are, and for a depressed or anxious person it only makes them who is unhappy with their life feel worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BP

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top