Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

[Stavros]

Even though the Russians most likely interfered in the U.S. election, that's not the reason why Hillary lost the election.

Is there a single reason? Maybe the answer lies in a mixture of causes of which the Russian is one, but MrFanti does not even refer to them.

If there is any relevance of the above to the thread in question, it may lie in the long-standing anxieties that governments have with the open internet. They don't like it, because the horizontal spread of free speech is that much harder to control. With ISPs in possession of the software that can monitor individual browsing habits and emails, and with so many people using so few ISPs, the fall-out from the Russia investigations in the US Elections of 2016 and the way in which social media was attacked by Bots, implies that in the future legislators may seek the means to exert more political control over web content. Just as I wondered out loud, not knowing the answer, if the end of Net Neutrality threatened free access to Hung Angels, so I wonder if the end of Net Neutrality could mark the end of web neutrality in general. Of all the administrations the USA has had in recent years, the current one presents the greatest challenge to -it may even be a threat- to the validity of the Constitution as the source of law. Time is running out for freedom in the USA as the Christian Evangelists and Confederate Terrorists circle Washington. Cue the music, the flags, the drums.

[buttslinger]

You should read Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal. It explains 2016 perfectly

Thanks Torris, I've never heard of it, but I'll give it a look.

[Lester316]

As a Brit and having experienced the Brexit vote situation I would suggest that when it comes to the influence on voting from outside entities (such as Russia in the case of the American election) I think we need to be careful not to overstate the influence of fake headlines and such.

Brexit is a good example. In my opinion most people who I knew that turned out to vote had made their mind up well in advance of voting. Those that I knew who chose remain often stated they felt the country was stronger as part of the EU, felt we needed and still need an influx of foreign labour to keep certain industries and public services afloat and were often generally in a reasonable place in life (ie: in stable employment, benefiting from further education and/or financially secure and able to go on things like holidays abroad on a regular basis). Those I knew that chose Brexit often felt less European and more British; wanted the country to govern itself; perhaps felt jobs were hard to come by for friends, family and children and were in some cases struggling themselves (in debt, sometimes quite working class or felt that they were and were lucky if they were in a place to afford any disposable income like spending).

The one thing most of them had in common is that they weren't being swayed by posts on social media (real or fake) or other crazy claims by either political group such as "if we leave the future is so uncertain" or "if we stay the country will have less money to spend on health care" for example. Those that didn't bother to vote at all generally tending to be suffering from apathy trusting the views of no politicians at all on either side and quite simply believing that in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't really make a difference.

Post-vote and the Remain camp constantly shouts out that the people were fooled, duped and sold a lie whilst the Brexit camp shouts it's all taking too long and that those trying to cling to a hope of a second vote are undemocratic. Honestly I think it's done now and regardless of how long it takes (ages no doubt because bureaucracy always does and this is about as big an example as it gets) and all in all people got what they asked for; they asked for a vote, there was a vote and if people think lies spread by Russians on social media really made a difference they are deluded. After all if we believe the stories then Russia was pro-Brexit but we know that the trend of social media users (in the UK of course) is to be in the younger voting demographic which was also polled to be most likely to vote remain.

My point in all of this is that social media fake news doesn't win elections; it may influence the vote in some small way but it is real life that dictates people's decisions. The Brexit vote really came down to case of the haves vs the have-not's I believe; those that wanted something to change because they felt life couldn't get much worse outnumbered those that were quite happy with the status-quo. But that is hardly a shock. Apply similar logic to Trump being voted in and the question really is what was most important to the people that voted for him and not Hilary; I doubt it was fake media posts made by Russians, instead most likely it was something much more personal. For those less well off maybe they felt excluded from improvements made in recent years, are from middle America and scared as the country becomes more liberal and accepting of other ethnic backgrounds, sexual persuasions and genders or were so poor they felt simply something else might be better. For those that are financially better off that voted Trump most likely they were voting for a republican regardless. And for some others perhaps they were like many in the UK who had become anti-politic and just wanted someone who didn't represent what they had seen for years and years (in this case a Clinton).

Regardless it was all most likely because of something much more personal than anything the Russian's cooked up and spread through media or social media.

(I know this was off topic; point that out if you like but I think the interference by Russians issue gets overstated far too much and wanted to air my views).

[skirtrustler]

Getting back on topic... LOL

throttling: the act of strangling by restricting airflow through the windpipe

Will the last surviving member please turn out the lights.

[Stavros]

As a Brit and having experienced the Brexit vote situation I would suggest that when it comes to the influence on voting from outside entities (such as Russia in the case of the American election) I think we need to be careful not to overstate the influence of fake headlines and such.
My point in all of this is that social media fake news doesn't win elections; it may influence the vote in some small way but it is real life that dictates people's decisions. Apply similar logic to Trump being voted in and the question really is what was most important to the people that voted for him and not Hilary; I doubt it was fake media posts made by Russians, instead most likely it was something much more personal.
Regardless it was all most likely because of something much more personal than anything the Russian's cooked up and spread through media or social media.
(I know this was off topic; point that out if you like but I think the interference by Russians issue gets overstated far too much and wanted to air my views).

I do agree with you on these points. I don't use social media (other than this forum) and so have no personal experience of Facebook and things like that, and I am speculating on the actual impact on social media the Russians might have had as well as the real or assumed damage caused by the FBI re-opening investigations into the email server. The margins of victory were very small in some states, that is confirmed. Nevertheless, the additional issue may not be the result of the election, but the allegation that the Russians were directly or indirectly involved in the Republican campaign through the movement of money from Russia to the US, through Russian-sourced anti-Clinton 'news stories', the Wikileaks publications and so on.

[Stavros]

Getting back on topic... LOL
Will the last surviving member please turn out the lights.

Will the end of Net Neutrality usher in a dark new world?

[smalltownguy]

Will the end of Net Neutrality usher in a dark new world?

hell yeah ..we will !!!!!!

[Ts RedVeX]

The two paragraphs read:

The members of the network went into a private channel, boylover.net, and then used its secret systems to share films and images of abused children, said Rob Wainwright, director of European police agency Europol.
However, child abuse investigators, including a team from Ceop, had already infiltrated the network and were posing as paedophiles to gather intelligence


Which means the investigators (...) infiltrated (...) before Europol's director said (...)

Stavros once again did not und3rstand what he had read xd

Oh and communim is growing in America and Europe. So Marx's weakest argument is proven.

[buttslinger]

....Stavros once again did not und3rstand what he had read xd
Oh and communim is growing in America and Europe. So Marx's weakest argument is proven.

Nobody truly understands what another writes,
Communim is not what should happen, it's what will happen, according to Marx.
The Marshall plan went over to Japan after WWII and taught the Japanese how to run a business, The Japanese listened, while at home, we didn't. Too many bosses.
Bezos Buffet and Gates now are worth as much as the bottom 50% of the US.
It should be up to the Government to "throttle" the laws to break up the Monopolies. THAT would stimulate the economy.
With the exception of healthcare, because nobody gets turned away from the ER.
The USA isn't rich because it's smart, it's rich because we bombed all our competition to Hell in WWII.
Selling ice to Eskimos might be genius for a door to door salesman, but when Trump chooses sides in Mgmt/Employee arbitration, the whole world is about to go to hell*
*2008

[buttslinger]

Nobody truly understands what another writes, ..... the whole world is about to go to hell*
*2008

Scheesh, even for me that post was a snake eating it's tail.
I swear I would not be surprised if Trump and Tillerson are getting direct orders from Moscow.