Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Owl, Dec 14, 2017.

  1. Thats a good point. Thankfully historically the only force strong enough to censor anything on the internet is the individuals own ignorance. You can find information on any subject if you actually go look for it. The problem is complacency. People expect that information to be found and processed for them, chewed up and fed to them by biased media.

    But heres the real, technical argument. Isps can automatically block certain keyword combinations, ip addresses and even groups of people on generated watchlists from accessing the internet. Thankfully, isps can only block information that they can actually read. Nowadays encryption is so strong that its a waste of time for the NSA to try to decrypt one of your emails. It would take days with the current technology. Quantum computing can help, but then we'll just have better and better encryption as that technology gets better and better. The NSA just asks gmail to open your emails for them anyway. As long as your information is encrypted, they will not be able to tell tell exactly what you are doing. Sure, they could block your ip, but I think that's an issue that far exceeds net neutrality and should have no basis in this current discussion.

    Like I said before, Twitter dumps its profits into RnD then keeps that money so they dont have to be taxed for that would be profit.

    The following refers to Twitter's Form 10-K for 2015. Part 2 item 8 states their total accumulated deficit to be 2,093,477,000. Their total cost of operation for 2015 is 2,668,068,000 with a good 806,648,000 stowed away in research and development and 871,491,000 in sales and marketing.
    Ask yourself this: why does a social media platform need about 1.5 billion dollars in RnD and sales? All that money invested and you'd think a corporation as big as Twitter would be able to budget properly and save its shares from plummeting from 70 to about 28 (last I recall) dollars a share. Here's a hint: twitter chairman jack Dorsey owns less than 5% of Twitter shares. Biz stone, Evan Williams, and the other founder (Noah?) Own less than that. They dont care about shares.

    I could go on but I don't want to do your research for you. Look up their annual fiscal statements and see for yourself.
  2. [This comment has been removed by your internet provider.]

    [To see full comments please subscribe to our "Forum Media internet package", for an additional $12.95/mo.]
  3. :lol:
  4. It’s half true, they claim their intent isn’t to set up platforms like that just to milk consumers for more money. I think we all know these companies are incredible greedy and as soon as they feel they can get away with doing something this for money they will.

    Any system where doing something like is even remotely possible is infinitely worse than the open internet we have now.
  5. NetNeutraliy was passed in 2015 and in place for less than 2 years. I’m not overly worried about going back to the dark ages of 2 years ago. 99% of people don’t have a clue what there upset about.
  6. So if your argument is

    "Net neutrality has been passed before and there was no change"


    Why was it gotten rid of in the first place and why does it need to go back?

    Surely if there was no change at all between net neutrality and no net neutrality then you can just not bother getting rid of it and save all the time and effort
  7. No, I dont think thats his argument at all.
  8. Good. Most people don't even realize that Title 2 does nothing to stop ISPs from "curating" the internet.

    Anyone else here use T-mobile? Netflix is completely free and does NOT use up your data if you do use T-mobile. In turn T-mobile puts your normal video streaming on normal "lanes" and Netflix streams are prioritized. Guess what? No ones complaining. I don't even use Netflix and my Youtube 1080p streams are perfectly fine.

    Either way NN only really affects normies. I hope it gets repealed. But if it doesn't get repealed it doesn't really bother me.