PragerU on Net Neutrality

[Sky High]

I don't have a problem with companies shutting down right-wingers like Alex Jones as long as they are honest about their leftist bias as a company. But of course they're frauds, if people had known from the start what their bias was, would it still be as popular? Probably not. Facebook, Google etc. rose to fame masquerading as something they were not, open platforms. That's fraudulent in my view.

oh god you actually made me laugh out loud. no they're not when their TOS are so purposely vague that they can enforce the rules how ever they see fit, you know who can tell them to stop that? the big bad gobnent. as it's been pointed out this is the difference between internet and social media.

Taking down child porn is policing, not regulation.

policing is another word for enforcing the law and in this case the law would be "no child porn" which is in fact, regulation. I should be surprised by this level on mental gymnastics but I'm not.

[Adam Jensen]

I don't have a problem with companies shutting down right-wingers like Alex Jones as long as they are honest about their leftist bias as a company. But of course they're frauds, if people had known from the start what their bias was, would it still be as popular? Probably not. Facebook, Google etc. rose to fame masquerading as something they were not, open platforms. That's fraudulent in my view.

Hopefully the truth is out now and they will fall soon.

- - - Updated - - -



Taking down child porn is policing, not regulation. No different than a cop on the street witnessing a crime in progress and stopping it.

A full scale regulation of the Internet would be something like a curfew in real life and some streets being off limits to you even if you haven't been proven to have done anything wrong.

So . . . because Facebook et al kicked off an extremist far right douchebag for violating their TOS by spewing lies and hatred, they're "leftist?"

None of that, by the way, has to do with Net Neutrality, as Facebook, Twitter, etc are not ISPs.

[Felya]

Policing because of Law and Regulations.

Which didn't happen with Net Neutrality.

Just a reminder... if one hates MSNBC... Comcast is owned by NBC...

[JohnBrown1917]

Policing because of Law and Regulations.



Which didn't happen with Net Neutrality.

On the internet, the far right has been doing this for ages, been claiming that NN stands for something completely different. So they either fell to some rich asshole's propaganda or are just against it because 'to own the libs lulz'.

[szechuan]

Here's an option: Don't spend any resources on telling ISPs what to do about net neutrality

You want ISP's to start Policing the internet?

[Felya]

Here's an option: Don't spend any resources on telling ISPs what to do about net neutrality, divert all those resources to a stronger police presence on the dark web.

Instead spend those resources telling Facebook what to do? You think NBC owned Comcast will make it easier to watch Fox News or MSNBC?

[Deleted]

policing is another word for enforcing the law and in this case the law would be "no child porn" which is in fact, regulation. I should be surprised by this level on mental gymnastics but I'm not.

Don't think there's a fundamental difference between a trade regulation dealing with mainly first world problems vs. a law based on the principle that can't you initiate force?

If an ISP sucks, more can always take its place. The ISP doesn't owe you anything anyway. If a child is abused... not much the child can do about it.

[JohnBrown1917]

They're not going enough.

Here's an option: Don't spend any resources on telling ISPs what to do about net neutrality, divert all those resources to a stronger police presence on the dark web.

Government doesn't have unlimited money. It should spend what it has on its main functions: defense and combating the initiation of aggression/fraud

If you think they are not doing enough, you just have no idea how the dark web works. Its not as easy as you think it is.


And not making laws because they cost money? really?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't think there's a fundamental difference between a trade regulation dealing with mainly first world problems vs. a law based on the principle that can't you initiate force?

If an ISP sucks, more can always take its place. The ISP doesn't owe you anything anyway. If a child is abused... not much the child can do about it.

Then its turns out most ISPs have a monpoly/duo-monopoly

oops

[Felya]

You want ISP's to start Policing the internet?

It makes no sense... how does giving MSM, like NBC, power to throttle or block content they don’t like through Comcast... help conservative causes?

[szechuan]

If an ISP sucks, more can always take its place.

Free Market will Fix Itself?

[Felya]

If an ISP sucks, more can always take its place. The ISP doesn't owe you anything anyway. If a child is abused... not much the child can do about it.

Again, this doesn’t make any sense... how do you think Comcast ends up as rich as it is, while consecutively winning awards for worst service?

- - - Updated - - -

Free Market will Fix Itself?

Every ISP will run its own lines and infrastructure...

[Slybak]

If there's such a huge public outcry then I believe hundreds of millions of people can figure out a way to make a proper ISP.

Yeah its called voting to elect representatives to pass legislation that creates nationwide public broadband.

[Deleted]

So . . . because Facebook et al kicked off an extremist far right douchebag for violating their TOS by spewing lies and hatred, they're "leftist?"

None of that, by the way, has to do with Net Neutrality, as Facebook, Twitter, etc are not ISPs.

I didn't say they were, now that said, they have engaged in a pattern of consistently targeting right-wing outlets.

Mark Zuckerberg has also admitted recently that there's a leftist bias in many Silicon Valley tech companies. It would be fair if they had done this years ago when they first started. Even in a free market, fraud is still not allowed. You should be as honest as possible with your associates in any business venture.

- - - Updated - - -

Free Market will Fix Itself?

People in the free market fix it.

Well, if they're not a nation of lazy people anyway. But if they're that damn lazy, then why should I trust the collective to regulate anything?

[szechuan]

I didn't say they were, now that said, they have engaged in a pattern of consistently targeting right-wing outlets.

Violating Company Policy, and being Toxic among other things is not Targeting Right-Wing outlets.

[Slybak]

Violating Company Policy, and being Toxic among other things is not Targeting Right-Wing outlets.

*whispers*actually it it is because right-wing outlets are inherently toxic propagandists

[Deleted]

Violating Company Policy, and being Toxic among other things is not Targeting Right-Wing outlets.

If standards matter, Young Turks would be banned for harassing officer Darren Wilson. By any objective standard, that is what happened. They kept saying he was a racist murderer even though the courts say otherwise.

Saying that Wilson is a racist murderer is the same level of conspiracy as saying Sandy Hook didn't happen and the parents are in on it.

It also falls under targeted harassment policy.

[szechuan]

If standards matter, Young Turks would be banned for harassing officer Darren Wilson.

Having a different opinion is not Harassment.

[Sky High]

The ISP doesn't owe you anything anyway. If a child is abused... not much the child can do about it.

and neither do social media platforms like FB or twitter. you are so fundamentally ignorant about what you're talking about and clearly have nothing to go on but some anarcho capitalist kool aid to quench your thirst. I mean you're the one who brought up taking down child porn but now you don't care if child porn is made? what. the. FUUUUUUUUUUCK.

[Deleted]

and neither do social media platforms like FB or twitter. you are so fundamentally ignorant about what you're talking about and clearly have nothing to go on but some anarcho capitalist kool aid to quench your thirst. I mean you're the one who brought up taking down child porn but now you don't care if child porn is made? what. the. FUUUUUUUUUUCK.

No, they are bound by the non-aggression principle. They are also bound to not commit fraud by pretending to be something they're not.

Btw, by banning Alex Jones, they lose a lot of ad revenus he pulls in. So they are acting against the interests of investors who want profit not ideology.

[Slybak]

No, they are bound by the non-aggression principle. They are also bound to not commit fraud.

Says who? THE GOVERNMENT?!