Vote for Net Neutrality

[Blaze Nielsen]

An issue everyone who uses Second Life should feel strongly about.

Here’s a super quick and effective way to support net neutrality.
1. On a computer or tablet (but not your phone) go to: www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
2. For "Proceeding") type 17-108.
3. In comments, say: I support Title 2 oversight of ISPs and I support net neutrality.
*Fill in the form carefully; they've made it less friendly and impossible to fill in by phone, on purpose.
*Don't be silenced. DO IT NOW!
*Copy & Paste and Pass it on.
Thanks!

[Lindal Kidd]

Agreed.  And everyone should share this information in their other social media, too.  Act on it, and pass it on!

[Chaser Zaks]

It isn't like Ajit Pai is going to listen, we can have a billion legitimate "don't remove net neutrality" things sent in, all he cares about is removing it because big corporations are doing behind the scenes bribes and woah what do you know he worked for Verizon before he got into politics.

There is only one true solution to this, and that's to send him to the echo chamber dimension so he will be happy in a place where the only person that matters to him agrees with him.

[Prokofy Neva]

Absolutely not.

I've written a great deal on this subject but it boils down to this: socialism doesn't work.

Bandwidth is a scarce resource you can't "redistribute it," you have to invest in it and earn a profit from it, and that means we have to pay for it.

Happy to pay higher bills for my SL service if it becomes the "horror" all the geeks imagine.

But it won't, and I do hope those advocating for it will have the intellectual decency to come back and admit it.

[Lada Charlton]

Thank you for sharing!!

It doesn't matter if Ajit Pai listens, what matters is that we fight as hard as possible to keep a free and open internet. "Life" here in Second Life wouldn't be possible without it. 

What on earth does Net Neutrality have to do with socialism? How are you so confident that telecom companies would self-regulate if, when given the chance in recent history, they have abused and exploited it to block entire communities from accessing information online? What if the price to run any MMO becomes so high that even *you* cannot pay it and only a very, very wealthy portion of the globe can afford? How do you think new businesses are started on the internet? Do you think these new businesses will no longer be important to future tech innovation if we just decide to de-regulate internet speeds and access? ?

Access to the internet is a human right. It's like being able to get into a library. Imagine if your public library introduced a wildly volatile payscale for their *used* books. Who would actually pay and what would their profits be?

The market has *not* self-corrected, or any of the libertarian, pure market capitalist nonsense when telecoms have changed the speed and cut off communities *before* net neutrality, so what makes you think it would, after? 

[Prokofy Neva]

It's not about "Ajit Pai," as an individual, as he has been *appointed* by a democratically-elected president, Trump. You may not like Trump -- I don't, I voted for Hillary. But he's democratically elected. As was Obama before him, who imposed the silly "net neutrality" rules in the first place, beyond reason, in keeping with his socialistic worldview.

Personalizing this to Ajit Paj, in good Sol Alinsky fashion, has taken grotesque forms, as it always does with SL-style griefers, where people go to his home and put up posters attacking his children and bomb his web site with messages. Awful.

Net neutrality is indeed socialism, dear. It is forcing companies not to charge what they can in a market, and subsidizing or "redistributing" the good of the Internet which these companies in fact helped pay for in part. They *did* "build that," in answer to Elizabeth Warren. 

In my view, matters of scarce resources should be decided by Congress as law, not a government agency as a rule. But it is what it is, and through Obama's fault, who used agencies as his personal fiefdoms to push through his socialist world vision which he had at least since college. And I should know, because in real life, I went to the same Socialist Scholars' Conferences as he did.

Access to the Internet actually isn't a human right. There are groups at the UN that have tried to make it so, but it isn't quite that as in a signed and ratified treaty. It's expression ON the Internet not ACCESS, which is a positive right as distinct from a negative right, and PS the US has not signed the "economic rights" covenants at the UN because the US does not believe in socialism. And that's a good thing. Because even wealthy countries don't have the resources to *pay for* people to have Internet access for free.  They don't even do a good job with public libraries, which have vastly cut their hours and resources, themselves a victim of the Internet, which they do provide for free but only for 30 minutes and there's awful a line. Of course, in NYC, you have the option to step outside in the cold and go to one of those wireless pillars which lets you check your email for one minute before you have to keep clicking on it to keep it online but that's annoying. Oh, there's another thing you can do. Pay $35 a month for the cheapest cell phone service (that's what I do) and $37 for the cheapest Internet service (ditto). If my Internet *doubles* to $80 or $100 *because of SL*, believe me, it's still cheap at the price. I'll live, by abandoning my land if necessary.

Telecoms already self-regulate, and your claims that they have "blocked entire communities" just aren't documented and/or are exaggerated. Er, communities that didn't want to pay more? Or what?

Opposing socialistic "net neutrality" isn't about Ayn Rand or Trump or the alt-right of "libertarian, pure market capitalism" or any of the things you hate. It's about normal capitalism under the rule of law where companies have to care about customers. If telecoms charge too much, they lose customers. There is enough competition in the field to prevent the horrors you anticipate -- you know, like there was before these silly rules stifling investment were put in place.

All that's happening here is that the "cool" companies like Google or Facebook that GAIN by having their business costs assumed by the government -- the taxpayer -- lobby endlessly in the worst way inciting the worst kind of behavior because telecoms aren't under their control. But that's a good thing, to have some hedge against the IT gangs' monopolistic behavior. You know, so we don't have that "libertarian pure market capitalist nonsense" you hate?

And speaking of "libertarian pure market capitalism nonsense," no doubt you hate the tax bill, but my God, look at what Apple gets away with, you know, that cool company whose i-phone you bought.

BTW, you're welcome to have the last word in this "debate". You can mention subsidies of telecoms which you'll call "corporate welfare" and I'll call "normal business incentive by any sane government because you know, they create instead of take away jobs like your friend Google does". You'll rant that I'm a "land barron" in SL, although renting land that pays US $1.50 a month is hardly anything more than chump change. Let me think. Maybe you'll say I'm fat! 

But that's just why I don't like to argue RL issues with SL anonymous avatars who can lob all kinds of things at you without any responsibility because they're anonymous. Again, do have the intellectual honesty to come back and admit not only that none of the horrors you imagine came to pass, for your next round, try to prove your wildly exaggerated claims of "entire communities being cut off". PS I find most of these debates stem from Googlians who live in San Francisco where they only have ComCast for some reason.  

Edited December 9, 2017 by Prokofy Neva

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

12 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Absolutely not.

I've written a great deal on this subject but it boils down to this: socialism doesn't work.

Bandwidth is a scarce resource you can't "redistribute it," you have to invest in it and earn a profit from it, and that means we have to pay for it.

Happy to pay higher bills for my SL service if it becomes the "horror" all the geeks imagine.

But it won't, and I do hope those advocating for it will have the intellectual decency to come back and admit it.

pfft, it works in Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland.  All of which are better countries by far than the US for, oh shucks, just about everything.  Happiness, life expectancy, child care, education, healthcare, maternity care, people not getting shot by the police, people not getting shot by their neighbours, people just generally not getting shot really, better social care, better mental health support.  Those countries are cleaner, you know, just face it.  Socialism works.  The US, on the other hand, is being run into the ground by a nazi sh1t gibbon and his pals.  Sucks to be you.

[Lada Charlton]

18 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

It's not about "Ajit Pai," as an individual, as he has been *appointed* by a democratically-elected president, Trump. You may not like Trump -- I don't, I voted for Hillary. But he's democratically elected. As was Obama before him, who imposed the silly "net neutrality" rules in the first place, beyond reason, in keeping with his socialistic worldview.

Personalizing this to Ajit Paj, in good Sol Alinsky fashion, has taken grotesque forms, as it always does with SL-style griefers, where people go to his home and put up posters attacking his children and bomb his web site with messages. Awful.

Net neutrality is indeed socialism, dear. It is forcing companies not to charge what they can in a market, and subsidizing or "redistributing" the good of the Internet which these companies in fact helped pay for in part. They *did* "build that," in answer to Elizabeth Warren. 

In my view, matters of scarce resources should be decided by Congress as law, not a government agency as a rule. But it is what it is, and through Obama's fault, who used agencies as his personal fiefdoms to push through his socialist world vision which he had at least since college. And I should know, because in real life, I went to the same Socialist Scholars' Conferences as he did.

Access to the Internet actually isn't a human right. There are groups at the UN that have tried to make it so, but it isn't quite that as in a signed and ratified treaty. It's expression ON the Internet not ACCESS, which is a positive right as distinct from a negative right, and PS the US has not signed the "economic rights" covenants at the UN because the US does not believe in socialism. And that's a good thing. Because even wealthy countries don't have the resources to *pay for* people to have Internet access for free.  They don't even do a good job with public libraries, which have vastly cut their hours and resources, themselves a victim of the Internet, which they do provide for free but only for 30 minutes and there's awful a line. Of course, in NYC, you have the option to step outside in the cold and go to one of those wireless pillars which lets you check your email for one minute before you have to keep clicking on it to keep it online but that's annoying. Oh, there's another thing you can do. Pay $35 a month for the cheapest cell phone service (that's what I do) and $37 for the cheapest Internet service (ditto). If my Internet *doubles* to $80 or $100 *because of SL*, believe me, it's still cheap at the price. I'll live, by abandoning my land if necessary.

Telecoms already self-regulate, and your claims that they have "blocked entire communities" just aren't documented and/or are exaggerated. Er, communities that didn't want to pay more? Or what?

Opposing socialistic "net neutrality" isn't about Ayn Rand or Trump or the alt-right of "libertarian, pure market capitalism" or any of the things you hate. It's about normal capitalism under the rule of law where companies have to care about customers. If telecoms charge too much, they lose customers. There is enough competition in the field to prevent the horrors you anticipate -- you know, like there was before these silly rules stifling investment were put in place.

All that's happening here is that the "cool" companies like Google or Facebook that GAIN by having their business costs assumed by the government -- the taxpayer -- lobby endlessly in the worst way inciting the worst kind of behavior because telecoms aren't under their control. But that's a good thing, to have some hedge against the IT gangs' monopolistic behavior. You know, so we don't have that "libertarian pure market capitalist nonsense" you hate?

And speaking of "libertarian pure market capitalism nonsense," no doubt you hate the tax bill, but my God, look at what Apple gets away with, you know, that cool company whose i-phone you bought.

BTW, you're welcome to have the last word in this "debate". You can mention subsidies of telecoms which you'll call "corporate welfare" and I'll call "normal business incentive by any sane government because you know, they create instead of take away jobs like your friend Google does". You'll rant that I'm a "land barron" in SL, although renting land that pays US $1.50 a month is hardly anything more than chump change. Let me think. Maybe you'll say I'm fat! 

But that's just why I don't like to argue RL issues with SL anonymous avatars who can lob all kinds of things at you without any responsibility because they're anonymous. Again, do have the intellectual honesty to come back and admit not only that none of the horrors you imagine came to pass, for your next round, try to prove your wildly exaggerated claims of "entire communities being cut off". PS I find most of these debates stem from Googlians who live in San Francisco where they only have ComCast for some reason.  

The misogyny is so rich in your reply that I will only post this comment and refuse to engage with you further, as you have assumed so many absolutely false stereotypes. And frankly, the last part is disturbing as you seem to have a very detailed image and sense of social interactions that have never occurred, and will never occur. Good luck trying to find targets. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Lada Charlton

[Prokofy Neva]

Socialism may work in small countries with one very predominant ethnic group with stern Christian culture, perhaps, but if you probe you'll find these much-ballyhooed socialist countries aren't so socialist.

Finland has the highest rate of suicide in Europe. That's enviable? 

People are always welcome to try to immigrate to these countries if the hate America. Oops, they don't like immigrants so much in these countries, have you noticed? Especially Muslims.

America is what created the Internet, Google, Facebook and Twitter. Oh, and Second Life. And many of those people involved in these creations were immigrant from countries that had racist policies, or wars, or hatred of business and socialism, such as it is. This isn't even a debate, just note how immigration works here: six-lane Texas highway coming in, cowpath going out. Amen.

[NevaehHeartstrings]

As a Clueless Git,  I've come to believe internet access in a basic package that allow everyone to access information in today's society is near being a needed universal right..Google Fiber has been really innovative in efforts to bring it to the masses were everyone has access.

FTC on Net Neutrality: “We Are Being Set Up to Fail” by Ajit Pai and FCC

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by NevaehHeartstrings

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

5 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

 

Finland has the highest rate of suicide in Europe. That's enviable? 

 

Well at least it's their choice.  You're still more likely to be shot in the US than to top yourself in Finland.  As to the rest of your dribble, well, it's dribble, it's what you do best.  You're good at hate and not much else.  You poor old thing.

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

 

11 minutes ago, NevaehHeartstrings said:

As a Clueless Git,  I've come to believe internet access in a basic package that allow everyone to access information in today's society is near being a needed universal right..Google Fiber has been really innovative in efforts to bring it to the masses were everyone has access.

FTC on Net Neutrality: “We Are Being Set Up to Fail” by Ajit Pai and FCC

 

Er, Google Fiber needs to sell ads in its Ad Agency with the search loss-leader, so OF COURSE they want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for their business costs. Next!

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

Well at least it's their choice.  You're still more likely to be shot in the US than to top yourself in Finland.  As to the rest of your dribble, well, it's dribble, it's what you do best.  You're good at hate and not much else.  You poor old thing.

I don't think that's the attitude to take toward suicide, but now I have the measure of your morality. You're also wrong about the "likelihood" of being shot in the US versus the statistics for Finland's suicide. Go and look it up. Let me think now. I disagree with a socialist policy called "net neutrality". This has nothing to do with "hate" or "being old" or any thing of the sort. But as I said, I've taken the measure of your anonymous morality statement now, and I'm done. 

[NevaehHeartstrings]

9 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

 Next!

Looks like your on a roll today!

Edited December 9, 2017 by NevaehHeartstrings

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

8 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I don't think that's the attitude to take toward suicide, but now I have the measure of your morality. You're also wrong about the "likelihood" of being shot in the US versus the statistics for Finland's suicide. Go and look it up. Let me think now. I disagree with a socialist policy called "net neutrality". This has nothing to do with "hate" or "being old" or any thing of the sort. But as I said, I've taken the measure of your anonymous morality statement now, and I'm done. 

Actually, prokster, I'm a Samaritan, and whilst our mission statement is still that fewer people die by suicide, if someone calls us, and has decided on that course, and doesn't change their mind, then it is our duty and responsibility to stay on the phone with them while they die.  I'm fortunate; I haven't had to do that yet, but some of my colleagues have.   

You should just straight up admit that you hate socialism because you hate, fear and envy fairness, equality and all that is kind and decent in other humans.  Your bitterness is evident in every post you make.  I don't require anyone else's estimation of my moral worth.  You, on the other hand, desperately strive to be regarded more highly that you ever are, and long for validation and support.  You could give that some thought.

[Paul Hexem]

5 hours ago, Lada Charlton said:

Access to the internet is a human right. 

While I agree with Net Neutrality, I gotta call out this statement.

This issue is a consumer protection one, not a human right one. We have trouble enough with actual rights before we start making up new ones.

[Lada Charlton]

43 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

While I agree with Net Neutrality, I gotta call out this statement.

This issue is a consumer protection one, not a human right one. We have trouble enough with actual rights before we start making up new ones.

"I gotta call out this statement" is such a cheap non-argument.

Also, you've made multiple straw man fallacies in your reply.

Access to information is a universal human right. Whether you actually believe or work to uphold this right is none of my business. And the fact that most societies have had egregious abuse of power for at least one marginalized or targetted group for all of history, should not dissuade from the present human rights work of making opening up a new business or accessing information possible for anyone accessing networks based in the U.S. 

There are far more intellectually stimulating discussions on these topics... on .... the internet. I suggest anyone read them for accurate research into the internet and human rights of all types. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Lada Charlton

[Lada Charlton]

Some wild assumptions are being compounded in this thread, lol. I hate socialism and communism, and I think the idea that Net Neutrality should be abolished actually promotes the likelihood and presence of socialism and communism. Allowing pure-market-capitalism to take over the internet actually helps communist regimes, as so many globally (*cough*... China, Russia) have demonstrated. 

So I have no clue what this association between socialism and Net Neutrality is other than anti-Obama propaganda. 

This isn't deregulation, as so many who attempt to speak on the subject love to listen to themselves speak. It's the stripping of human rights of about 3 billion people on the planet (that is the total number of people connected to the internet). Remember, U.S. policy on the internet also affects global use of the internet because so many data centers and businesses primarily work out of this country. 

Like I said, go find other, less naive targets. There are none for your anti-Obama vitriol, false-socialism-equivalency here. 
 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Lada Charlton

[Madelaine McMasters]

51 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

While I agree with Net Neutrality, I gotta call out this statement.

This issue is a consumer protection one, not a human right one. We have trouble enough with actual rights before we start making up new ones.

Progress of our species depends, I think, on the widespread availability of information to all of us. On a bad day I could also argue that that such widespread access, absent an ability to critically assess it, might lead to our destruction. But it's a no brainer for me to come down on the side of ensuring free flow of information for all.

As rising imbalance in access to information produces a rising imbalance in access to wealth, we're going to see increased societal instability. Even if you don't see information access as a human right, it's certainly a human good.

I do share your concern about our ignorance of the most basic of human rights. Getting clean water to people is more important than getting information to them. It's possible though that getting them information will also help get them water.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Maybe I'm dumb, but doesn't Net neutrality simply mean being able to access the entire internet without our ISP  throttling speeds from certain websites or blocking content entirely?

Communist countries (the end goal of most socialists) are the least likely to believe in net neutrality because they wish to control information flow. On the other hand large corporations would also be against it, if it would in any way restrict their ability to make even more money from the consumer.

I'm sorry, but internet access is not a right for anyone. But if i do have internet access, my ISP should be a gateway, not a gatekeeper.

[Lada Charlton]

Acess to internet and access to information are two very different conditions, in my opinion. I don't believe anyone has the right to an internet connection, but I also believe that no one should restrict that right beyond reasonable means, in a non-socialist, or state-planned context (for the Barry fans above). 

This conversation is so much more enticing and interesting when people don't use fallacies. Yay! 

Also, re: earlier conversation, we're not talking about $5 or $10, or even $50. The context is in terms of tens of thousands, which might price out huge portions of the U.S. and most global societies that depend on U.S. tech networks to operate. In a pure-free-market system, telecoms might "discover" than their most profitable margins are with a very small portion of high-paying users currently on the internet. So, it's not a matter of "If my Internet *doubles* to $80 or $100 *because of SL*,", but rather, "will I have access to the internet at all if wealthy individuals and corporations set a price of around $10-20,000 a year at a minimum to access it." 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Lada Charlton

[NevaehHeartstrings]

21 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

my ISP should be a gateway, not a gatekeeper.

 

 

One things for certain if it goes through then in the 2020 Election we will have a new president...I can see the election fodder now ...Maybe that was the Trojan horse all along?

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Lada Charlton said:

"I gotta call out this statement" is such a cheap non-argument.

Also, you've made multiple straw man fallacies in your reply.

Access to information is a universal human right. Whether you actually believe or work to uphold this right is none of my business. And the fact that most societies have had egregious abuse of power for at least one marginalized or targetted group for all of history, should not dissuade from the present human rights work of making opening up a new business or accessing information possible for anyone accessing networks based in the U.S. 

There are far more intellectually stimulating discussions on these topics... on .... the internet. I suggest anyone read them for accurate research into the internet and human rights of all types. 

What multiple straw man fallacies? I only said the one thing, and didn't make much of an argument. I think you took that way too personally. 

 

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Progress of our species depends, I think, on the widespread availability of information to all of us. On a bad day I could also argue that that such widespread access, absent an ability to critically assess it, might lead to our destruction. But it's a no brainer for me to come down on the side of ensuring free flow of information for all.

As rising imbalance in access to information produces a rising imbalance in access to wealth, we're going to see increased societal instability. Even if you don't see information access as a human right, it's certainly a human good.

I do share your concern about our ignorance of the most basic of human rights. Getting clean water to people is more important than getting information to them. It's possible though that getting them information will also help get them water.

 

I didn't deny that it's a "human good", yeah.

I'm just so tired of seeing everything being called a human right all the time, except the things that actually are. Wish people would get as fired up about those. 

[Klytyna]

25 minutes ago, NevaehHeartstrings said:

One things for certain if it goes through then in the 2020 Election we will have a new president...I can see the election fodder now ...Maybe that was the Trojan horse all along?

But only if Engulf & Devour Interweb Inc, ALLOW you to see it...

And whose side, exactly, do you think they WILL allow you to see?
 

[Lada Charlton]

Fighting for the rights of marginalized groups of people (which is what you're describing) does not happen in a vacuum. Fighting for human rights of one part of human life usually works together with much other work towards protections of human rights, too.

This is your straw man fallacy, because you're arguing a point that was never made, instead, using an unrelated point to primarily distract and devalue the current conversation.