Tom Wheeler FCC Chairman to step down on Trump's Inauguration Day - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51534183]You can't just be a single-issue voter, you're responsible for the package you voted for.[/QUOTE] Some Trump supporters are willing to accept the responsibilities and do what they can to keep up to it. Should an anti-net neutrality, anti-LGBT, or some sort of thing come, I'm certain some will try to take part to protest against it. We shouldn't turn away Trump supporters because of the package they voted for, because not everything in the package is something they all can agree on.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51534208]Yep, we get it. You post this in every thread remotely related to trump. Got it. Don't need to keep saying it. Thanks. If you're going to make fun of this then why do you come off so upset that you don't get any trumpets to have a rational, mature discussion with?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sally;51534233]Careful you are insinuating an SH professional, prepare for a discussion that no one wants to take part in[/QUOTE] i think you two are working against your own interests here, by complaining about how thelurker thinks trump supporters never address these articles... instead of addressing the article

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51534208]Yep, we get it. You post this in every thread remotely related to trump. Got it. Don't need to keep saying it. Thanks.[/QUOTE] The more it happens the funnier/more annoying it gets. As irritating as they can be, and whether you like it or not, Facepunch's trumpets and their unwillingness to leave their safe spaces are becoming something of a running gag. [QUOTE=Bazsil;51534208]If you're going to make fun of this then why do you come off so upset that you don't get any trumpets to have a rational, mature discussion with?[/QUOTE] There's a difference between trying to convince supporters of a corrupt politician that they are backing the wrong side, and expecting to get anywhere by debating the corrupt politician themselves. Besides, how are you any better? you aren't debating the content of the article you are just reacting to the inevitable "Where are all the trumpets?" post in each thread.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51534309]i think you two are working against your own interests here, by complaining about how thelurker thinks trump supporters never address these articles... instead of addressing the article[/QUOTE] I'm not complaining about that, I'm complaining about the shit discussions that come out of trying to 'summon' one group of people to argue with them. Its cancer

[QUOTE=Sally;51534338]I'm not complaining about that, I'm complaining about the shit discussions that come out of trying to 'summon' one group of people to argue with them. Its cancer[/QUOTE] i agree. i wish more people here addressed individuals, not vague, generalized groups before anyone from that group even posts in the thread

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51534181]Gotten rid of net neutrality.[/QUOTE] No she wouldn't have

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51534349]i agree. i wish more people here addressed individuals, not vague, generalized groups before anyone from that group even posts in the thread[/QUOTE] Thank you

Well, whether a generalization isn't always incorrect, "trump supporter" to me is one criteria, you voted for Trump (or would have but were ineligible.) And essentially, what I'm asking is why people voted for a man who does things like this and has promises very likely to crash the economy, explode the debt, restrict freedoms, etc., and how the issues that got them to vote for him somehow took priority over these. If we had Hillary I'd certainly still be in negative threads talking about how much of a warhawk/neoliberal she was. And if it was Bernie I'd be there as well since he ain't perfect either. But I'd still have to admit that I voted for them because I felt the good outweighed the bad.

It really does seem like an increasingly better idea to move out of the United States at this point to be honest. I wish I could move to Germany / Scandinavia because I like the people there but even those places are going through the ongoing refugee crisis and a nasty rise in far-right groups.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51534519]It really does seem like an increasingly better idea to move out of the United States at this point to be honest. I wish I could move to Germany / Scandinavia because I like the people there but even those places are going through the ongoing refugee crisis and a nasty rise in far-right groups.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't really go yet. Wait until he's been prez for awhile. [sp]lern deutsch in the meantime tho. and if there's one thing merkel is good at, it's striking the right balance to stay in power[/sp] Also isn't most of scandinavia still pretty sane? Sweden is way too surrounded with memes so I have no idea about it but denmark, norway, and finland are pretty good and stable IIRC.

other than the whole feminist sidewalk and surveillance thing, sweden doesn't seem so bad, and they have one of the most powerful corporations in the entire universe, IKEA.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51534538]other than the whole feminist sidewalk and surveillance thing, sweden doesn't seem so bad, and they have one of the most powerful corporations in the entire universe, IKEA.[/QUOTE] The feminist sidewalk thing iirc was way taken out of context and misrepresented. Also doesn't help that it was the worst snow in like 100 years. Is the surveillance any worse than America's? I mean you can't really escape that sort of thing nowadays in most countries.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51534550]The feminist sidewalk thing iirc was way taken out of context and misrepresented. Also doesn't help that it was the worst snow in like 100 years. Is the surveillance any worse than America's? I mean you can't really escape that sort of thing nowadays in most countries.[/QUOTE] No, how they didn't let you record anything if public streets were in view. And the sidewalk thing definitely wasn't taken out of context, pretty much everyone agreed it was dumb.

[QUOTE=Sally;51534364]Thank you[/QUOTE] lol the irony contained in this post is enough to get me through the rest of the year. thank you.

Guys, what if someone starts a company and doesn't charge for specific websites, and he steals everybody else's business? What's stopping that from happening? Look at netflix.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51534574]No, how they didn't let you record anything if public streets were in view. And the sidewalk thing definitely wasn't taken out of context, pretty much everyone agreed it was dumb.[/QUOTE] I think I remember in the thread people using swedish sources and saying that it really wasn't what we're told it was, but meh I don't feel like finding that thread so I'll just assume I'm wrong here.

[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;51533948]I wonder how /pol/ and r_theDonald are taking it this.[/QUOTE] It won't matter until the next bill is about to be passed.

[QUOTE=Naught;51533470]I can't wait to see people defend no net neutrality because trump said it was bad. expecting lots of trickle down economy-style defenses with 'more money=more infrastructure!'[/QUOTE] the arguments ive heard so far are "no government oversight, i mean INTERFERANCE means freer internet!" when in reality "no government oversight means no open internet." ive even heard arguments leveled against it that are the definition of net neutrality like claiming we need less regulations to keep the internet open and free for all to post and use but that is the exact definition of what net neutral traffic is

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51534647]Guys, what if someone starts a company and doesn't charge for specific websites, and he steals everybody else's business? What's stopping that from happening? Look at netflix.[/QUOTE] Barrier of entry is way too high, even if it were to happen, it would take decades to get to a point where a lot of the U.S would even have an option. While we are held back for years other countries will be rapidly improving. Just look at what AT&T is doing now with free data for DIRECT TV if you buy a sub because they own it now.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51534674]the arguments ive heard so far are "no government oversight, i mean INTERFERANCE means freer internet!" when in reality "no government oversight means no open internet." ive even heard arguments leveled against it that are the definition of net neutrality like claiming we need less regulations to keep the internet open and free for all to post and use but that is the exact definition of what net neutral traffic is[/QUOTE] "Freedom" is such a pain in the ass. Because it's not just "the less the government does the more free the people are!" Net neutrality is one of those cases where government regulations enhance freedom. Really, it's a question of "freedom for whom" and it's ISPs and other powerful businesses vs. everyone else.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51534164]tbh, Clinton would've done the same thing with TPP.[/QUOTE] "Could have, would have, should have." Of course, when something negative happens, we go full circle and blame it on what Hillary could have done when she's not even President-elect. [B]But nah, Trump is infallible.[/B] Hahahahaha, I hope the spergs at r/The_Donald and /pol/ are having a grand time shitposting about this on their daddy-paid internet. Keep blaming the Democrats, after 2-3 more Republican presidencies, it's just [B]our country[/B] you're deteriorating. From Obama's birth certificates to Hillary's emails, for what the conservative side bashes about Democrats, they sure [B]LOVE[/B] posting from their safe spaces huh?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51534166]I remember when Tom Wheeler was appointed and people were unsure where exactly he stood on issues like consumer rights, net neutrality and thought he would fuck everyone over. He ended up proving us wrong and soon enough everyone loved him. Farewell, internet. We hardly knew ye.[/QUOTE] To be fair he didn't start out on great feet. It wasn't until later that he turned around and started doing this shit.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51534232]"she said it, therefore it's true"[/QUOTE] Your argument basically doesn't exist. You're simply saying "She would remove net neutrality" with no substance behind it. Trump will kidnap MightyLOLZOR's family and demand a ransom of two billion dollars. Trust me on this.

Since a lot of people like being smug, and this includes both sides of the political party, this is a daily reminder of what Net Neutrality protects against: [IMG]https://www.whizsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/n3.jpg[/IMG] I know it might be hard for people to accept that Trump isn't actually D R A I N I N G T H E S W A M P since you conservatives equally love buzzwords as much as the liberals, but he's just replacing the swamp water with more sewer water, it's not really that hard to comprehend. Of course, if you're on daddy's money, you might not understand the long-term ramifications of this and the dangerous precedence it sets for a long while.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51534181]Gotten rid of net neutrality.[/QUOTE] Nah.

Good thing I relocated my server from the US to Lithuania, not just because of net neutrality, but for what's to come.

Gonna restate what I have said in other threads about the subject ISPs will be shooting themselves in the foot if this happens. Despite what they may think customers want, people are going to constantly bitch about how their social media takes 10 minutes to load or that they can't download a document for work in time to actually accomplish a task that day. People will be inclined to switch to ISPs that refuse to throttle, like Google, though since many people won't, the economic impacts will be severe. The smaller impacts this will have will add up to be too big for people to bend over and accept. What will kill throttling more than anything is the negative inpact it will have on business, especially with small businesses. People won't wait 3 minutes for their favorite local shop's site to load when they can go to Amazon and buy stuff there. A new resident to an area won't order a pizza from the family owned place down the street when Domino's website loads at twenty times the speed. A small antique store that has thrived for years is going to die off because people can't browse their selection in any reasonable amount of time when they can just browse and order a cheap balsa wood table from IKEA in ten minutes or less. Republicans will champion for the internet to stay open once they see the impact that it has on their prime demographics. It may take a few months for the impacts to be felt, and by then it will be too late for many businesses. Basically this will ruin the economy and hopefully infuriate politicians into finally remembering that antitrust laws exist.

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51534868]Gonna restate what I have said in other threads about the subject ISPs will be shooting themselves in the foot if this happens. Despite what they may think customers want, people are going to constantly bitch about how their social media takes 10 minutes to load or that they can't download a document for work in time to actually accomplish a task that day. People will be inclined to switch to ISPs that refuse to throttle, like Google, though since many people won't, the economic impacts will be severe.[/QUOTE] I have no doubt in my mind that the masses will buy up whatever marketing shit Comcast, ATT, et all dump out. Only the tech-minded minorities will whine about it in the long term. Everyone else will complain for a billing cycle or two, then give in and buy whatever packages they want, and move on. [QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51534868] The smaller impacts this will have will add up to be too big for people to bend over and accept. What will kill throttling more than anything is the negative inpact it will have on business, especially with small businesses. People won't wait 3 minutes for their favorite local shop's site to load when they can go to Amazon and buy stuff there. [/QUOTE] True, which is why people will just use Amazon instead, and the local business will suffer. And what are they going to do about it? They can't afford to fight this. [QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51534868] A new resident to an area won't order a pizza from the family owned place down the street when Domino's website loads at twenty times the speed. A small antique store that has thrived for years is going to die off because people can't browse their selection in any reasonable amount of time when they can just browse and order a cheap balsa wood table from IKEA in ten minutes or less. [/QUOTE] I agree. I think it's a shame, but the republicans are the 'big business' party, remember? They don't care about the little people. [QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51534868] Republicans will champion for the internet to stay open once they see the impact that it has on their prime demographics. It may take a few months for the impacts to be felt, and by then it will be too late for many businesses. Basically this will ruin the economy and hopefully infuriate politicians into finally remembering that antitrust laws exist.[/QUOTE] It won't ruin the economy. It will ruin the livelihoods of a lot of people that the new administration does not care about, while simultaneously trampling over individual freedoms in favor of corporate freedoms -- which is the standard conservative MO. Don't hold your breath on them turning around on this. This is exactly what you can expect to continue for the next 4 years.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;51533488]Yeah, let's just grassroots up thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable.[/QUOTE] Funny you mention that, I found just such a thing a few weeks ago: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net[/url] Sure it's no fiber optic and spain's certainly not america, but you've got to give em' credit eh? Article: [url]https://backchannel.com/forget-comcast-heres-the-diy-approach-to-internet-access-ef1e37bc09e1#.qm2lhzxpc[/url]

they still need re-elected in 4 years