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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You have pointedly ignored how that vote on the margins which delivered the electoral college to the 45th President may have been swayed by the blizzard of negative social media that originated in Russia with the full approval, maybe the co-ordination of the Republicans. It remains to be seen if the 2016 election violated the law, and thus did not produce a legitimate result.
.

---

-The election was already swayed when Sally Wasserman and the DNC slanted the primaries in favor of Hillary over Sanders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lester316

.....As stated I'm done with arguing with you.....

---

If five out of ten people call somebody an asshole, that doesn't mean five people are seeing another through their own inadequacies, it means five people are too polite to call that person an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

If five out of ten people call somebody an asshole, that doesn't mean five people are seeing another through their own inadequacies, it means five people are too polite to call that person an asshole.

---

Or that 10 people can have different opinions. Sometimes it's easier to say what you mean succinctly rather than using fortune cookie vernacular...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Hopefully keeping this thread rocketing off course...........
In theory, I would have loved to seen Bernie take it all.
But only in theory.
I can only imagine America voted like a wounded trapped animal, .....so many parts of the country are seeing not only no more jobs, you can't even sell your house at a profit and move out . Desperation move for a new kind of Republican. That theory is wilder that electing a Communist President.



Hillary is not a likable person, who gives a shit?

https://preview.ibb.co/n7s2k6/00.jpg
gif upload 20mb

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

-The election was already swayed when Sally Wasserman and the DNC slanted the primaries in favor of Hillary over Sanders.

---

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

---

Okay.
The Obama administration while still in office was notified of Russian activity - but did nothing.

Not sure what you're insinuating but I'm not a Republican...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go:
Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.

---

The point being that by isolating these websites from the open internet, it was easier for law enforcement to infiltrate them and if you read your own link it states quite clearly-

However, child abuse investigators, including a team from Ceop, had already infiltrated the network and were posing as paedophiles to gather intelligence.

So when you write, Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat

-I refer you back to the evidence -law enforcement, infiltrating the website, gathered information on its members, and sent it to police forces around the world. It really is quite easy to understand is does not need to be smeared with juvenile insults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.

---

It is always the case that people who believe there are too many people in the world never include themselves in the figures, just as people who dismiss voters as morons never define themselves as a moron when they vote.

If indeed you have learned anything about the career of John D. Rockefeller, or Cornelius Vanderbilt, or Andrew Carnegie and John Pierpoint Morgan, then you will have learned something about the way in which capitalism developed in the USA from the end of the Civil War to the onset of global war in 1914.
But I doubt it, as you do not read to learn, it seems, but to reinforce your interpretation of the world in which anyone who does not abide by your definition of free markets is by definition a communist. In this way you dismiss the evidence that unregulated capitalism creates monopolies, and having stated in an earlier post it was caused by the state now it seems monopoly capitalism is the fault of communism, a remark so ignorant I am surprised you even thought of it But by one of those amusing tricks that unmasks the inner harlequin, you end up supporting one of Karl Marx's weakest arguments -namely, that as feudalism gave way to capitalism, so capitalism will give way to communism, give or take a class struggle or two, or three in this triunal world. Marx saw it as an iron law of history, and you seem to agree. Maybe growing up in Poland in the 1980s has had a more profound impact on your view of the world than you realise.

And, as usual, the core argument of the thread has been diverted into something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

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

---

That's what I've saying to him for the last 7 or so posting of mine....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torris

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.

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).

Getting back on topic... LOL

Quote:

---

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

---

Will the last surviving member please turn out the lights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skirtrustler

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

....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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

I think we can make it official - this thread has lost the plot completely.

Don't keep feeding the pests by responding to them guys. It only encourages them to keep coming back.

So you say the same government who should not be trusted because it has made possible by its idiotic regulations the very existence of so many monopolies, is now supposed to be trusted to make them disappear with more idiotic regulations... :dead:
That is insanity. You really are a deluded bunch, to say the least...

Two more “cartoons” that illustrate why net neutrality is needed.
Attachment 1042403
Attachment 1042404

fuck obama!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morim

fuck obama!!!!

---

I think you made typo when you entered your user name.

A cartoon why internet neutrality isn't needed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNtYmdZ-4c

The Federal Communications Commission made its decision today to repeal the Net Neutrality provision that was passed during the Obama Presidency.

As I am not an American I cannot know how this will affect consumers in the US -the judgement of the New York Times in its report is that

Despite all the uproar, it is unclear how much will change for internet users. The rules were essentially a protective measure, largely meant to prevent telecom companies from favoring some sites over others. And major telecom companies have promised consumers that their experiences online would not change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/t...T.nav=top-news

I guess 'watch this space' may be the best position to take on this right now. One hopes HA members in the US will keep us informed of the reality of this change for them.

Promises don’t mean shit when those with the most power are making them.

The whole thing will just go to court. They will probably get a order depending the circumstances to keep some or all things as is till the courts can make a decision. Some government agency actions can be challenged in court. So it's far from over.

All I know is what they tell me, they know that and act accordingly.
Trump is deregulating everything he can, he brags about it, to some extent I think it's good that huge rich corporations are in the USA, but only when they're on the leash, not unleashed.