FCC Throttled By NeoCities In Net Neutrality Protest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

That's pretty hilarious (also, neocities still exists? I had no idea)! It would be pretty great to see larger websites adopting this tactic...analysts in the FCC will probably become a lot more enthusiastic in their reports about the benefits of net neutrality!

FalloutJack:

When the cynic (That's me!) says you're being pessemistic, it's time to re-evaluate.

+1
The battle is still ongoing...the naysayers are simply recovering from the shellshock of the legal defeat five months ago. There's no cause to start waving white flags just yet!

Callate:
It may be screaming into the wind. But I certainly appreciate the gesture.

Wow, that's so much better than the pissing into the wind I've been doing. Gotta try that next time, it'll save on laundry.

FalloutJack:

What I said to him goes triple for you.

You can't offer a single example, then? Instead relying on quote editing and distraction instead of addressing the lack of meaningful change in the industry despite

I tend not to listen to doom prophecy. It's always wrong.

That's nice, but irrelevant to the facts or topic at hand. You're factually incorrect, so none of your strawmen matter here. It's not a doomsday prophecy. It's just reporting on the matters at hand as they happen to be. I've asked you before to not lie about my stances.

EDIT: By rhe way, you still haven't apologized for youe behavior when you argued about Microsoft, a bigwig that has taken quite a few hits as of late. You were in the wrong there too, and rude.

You lied about my stance and then ignored me. Your exact, repeated MO, in fact. Who was rude, exactly? Because I think you should apologise for your continued misrepresentation of others. This is a distraction from the fact that you cannot argue on the merits of consumer outrage having any positive impact on ISP policy. And if you can't address that, why even engage me?

dyre:
There's no cause to start waving white flags just yet!

Nor is there any reason to predict victory, but I bet you won't chastise the people who are claiming that.

Zachary Amaranth:

dyre:
There's no cause to start waving white flags just yet!

Nor is there any reason to predict victory, but I bet you won't chastise the people who are claiming that.

I don't remember "chastising" anyone, so, uh, yeah, I won't chastise people who claim that (though I would probably point out that there's no reason to wave victory flags either).

Oh by the way, you still haven't told me when I "lied" about you. Care to share?

Well everyone stating their opinion that this won't work have a point, I only have one question, got any better ideas?

Thing is, sometimes the stupidest/silliest ideas if they actually gain a bit of traction can surprise you. Like others have said it'll just take a couple of the big boys that have the balls to put their money where their mouth is (I'm looking at you Google. And Microsoft, don't think I don't see you trying to sneak out of the room.) and this could really work.

Personally I think the most effective group could be anyone providing the FCC with "cloud" services. I remember using my Sportster 33.6 and having a CD's worth of data take overnight to download. Think what a monkey wrench it would be if Dropbox throttled them. It'd almost be as good as redtube doing it, but I think if redtube throttled they'd get mostly elected officials, you know, the ones with all the time on their hands.

Zachary Amaranth:

dyre:
There's no cause to start waving white flags just yet!

Nor is there any reason to predict victory, but I bet you won't chastise the people who are claiming that.

Most likely because assuming defeat means you do nothing when victory was possible, and assuming victory means you do something even if defeat is assured. Frankly, I'd rather play it safe and give it everything I've got instead of just lying down and clamping my teeth around the curb as the FCC raises its mighty boot over my head.

Zachary Amaranth:
foit

No idea if what you said there was a legit response my statements, and it sure as hell wasn't an apology. Sounded more like accusation and insult. I'm fairly certain you shouldn't do that to people.

If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

MorganL4:
If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Unfortunately, the petition doesn't exactly mention what it wants the administration to actually do. I don't think the White House has any authority over the FCC. Obama might be able to issue a (politically costly) executive order on the matter but that would only last until the next administration, and it's not really a permanent fix.

dyre:

I don't remember "chastising" anyone, so, uh, yeah, I won't chastise people who claim that (though I would probably point out that there's no reason to wave victory flags either).

Ah. Word games. Still, I'm yet to see you live up to that claim of a single standard, even if we dismiss the sophistry.

FalloutJack:

No idea if what you said there was a legit response my statements, and it sure as hell wasn't an apology. Sounded more like accusation and insult. I'm fairly certain you shouldn't do that to people.

Really, if you're not going to address my posts, why reply?

Also, why accuse me of accusations when they were a response to you making accusations?

erttheking:

Most likely because assuming defeat means you do nothing when victory was possible, and assuming victory means you do something even if defeat is assured. Frankly, I'd rather play it safe and give it everything I've got instead of just lying down and clamping my teeth around the curb as the FCC raises its mighty boot over my head.

I wasn't aware your only alternatives were "wave the victory flag" or "admit defeat."

I mean, I'm fairly sick. I'm not sure I'm going to survive the long term. I'm actually fairly convinced of the opposite. I have not, however, given up entirely, forgoing medication and medical intervention. Unless I'm breaking some sort of law, I'm pretty sure there are more paths available for exploration here.

Zachary Amaranth:

erttheking:

Most likely because assuming defeat means you do nothing when victory was possible, and assuming victory means you do something even if defeat is assured. Frankly, I'd rather play it safe and give it everything I've got instead of just lying down and clamping my teeth around the curb as the FCC raises its mighty boot over my head.

I wasn't aware your only alternatives were "wave the victory flag" or "admit defeat."

I mean, I'm fairly sick. I'm not sure I'm going to survive the long term. I'm actually fairly convinced of the opposite. I have not, however, given up entirely, forgoing medication and medical intervention. Unless I'm breaking some sort of law, I'm pretty sure there are more paths available for exploration here.

I don't seem to recall making that claim. I was explaining why it was preferable to assume victory than to assume defeat. To use your example, if you walked into a hospital and found two very sick people, one convinced she/he was going to make it and one convinced she/he wouldn't, which one would you rather change their mind?

Zachary Amaranth:

dyre:

I don't remember "chastising" anyone, so, uh, yeah, I won't chastise people who claim that (though I would probably point out that there's no reason to wave victory flags either).

Ah. Word games. Still, I'm yet to see you live up to that claim of a single standard, even if we dismiss the sophistry.

1. How would I "live up" to that? I haven't seen any posts declaring that victory is assured (why would there be? That attitude makes no sense at all), so there's not much to reply to.
2. What is your problem? Are you looking for some kind of fight? I swear, half the time I talk to you you're reasonably civil, and the other half of the time you seem to think I'm some kind of hated enemy. Are you bipolar or something?

dyre:

MorganL4:
If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Unfortunately, the petition doesn't exactly mention what it wants the administration to actually do. I don't think the White House has any authority over the FCC. Obama might be able to issue a (politically costly) executive order on the matter but that would only last until the next administration, and it's not really a permanent fix.

You are right it does not give specifics, but the specifics are already known. Tom Wheeler SAID he was going to ensure that ISPs were reclassified under the law (something the FCC DOES have the power to do) so that we could maintain net neutrality. But then he reneged on it. And since Obama is Wheeler's boss he CAN pretty much tell him what to do.

MorganL4:

dyre:

MorganL4:
If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Unfortunately, the petition doesn't exactly mention what it wants the administration to actually do. I don't think the White House has any authority over the FCC. Obama might be able to issue a (politically costly) executive order on the matter but that would only last until the next administration, and it's not really a permanent fix.

You are right it does not give specifics, but the specifics are already known. Tom Wheeler SAID he was going to ensure that ISPs were reclassified under the law (something the FCC DOES have the power to do) so that we could maintain net neutrality. But then he reneged on it. And since Obama is Wheeler's boss he CAN pretty much tell him what to do.

Actually, the FCC is an independent government agency, so although Obama is technically Wheeler's "boss," he's not legally allowed to tell him what to do. It would be a bad precedent anyway...if that sort of conduct were allowed, then a pro-ISP president could totally wreck net neutrality. The White House can't do much in this situation.

Wheeler did say try say he would reclassify ISPs, and for the past few years the FCC has been regulating ISPs alongside other telecommunications carriers...but just this January, the DC Circuit court declared that regulating ISPs was outside the FCC's mandate.

The whole situation is much more complicated than people think, and it's been going on for longer than most people realize. This isn't the first legal setback the FCC has faced, but it is a pretty tough one. From my understanding, the FCC has its hands tied as long as the DC Circuit's decision remains in effect...they need to bring this to the Supreme Court. That's what people should be rallying for.

wetfart:
Good to see NeoCities is following the 9th rule of acquisition!

"Opportunity + instinct = profit"? Not quite sure that's the best one for this. :-p

Zachary Amaranth:
Zoop

Because I've been keeping score and pretty much finding you to be the one at fault. You kill conversation, dude. I see alot of put-downs and posts made to be contradictory rather than discussion of opinions in a friendly environment. Like Dyre says, you attack people, and with posts that may not hold a good point. And when you're called out like now, you act victimized. Well, you're not the victim, so cut it out. Enough already.

Well done, that man!

*stands* *applauds*

erttheking:

I don't seem to recall making that claim.

You presented it in a binary fashion.

dyre:
I haven't seen any posts declaring that victory is assured (why would there be? That attitude makes no sense at all), so there's not much to reply to.

Convenient. Is this based on the same literalism as before? Because it looks like it. And that's bad faith.

FalloutJack:
Zoop

Apology accepted.

Zachary Amaranth:

erttheking:

I don't seem to recall making that claim.

You presented it in a binary fashion.

Because it was fitting for the conversation that we were having. You were complaining that people got on those who were pessimistic and not those who were hopeful, and I explained why. I only talked about two options because those two options where the only ones that had been brought up? What was I supposed to do, bring in alternative options when they had nothing to do with what we were talking about?

Also, not to butt in, but the other guys you're replying to have a point. You do have a really bad habit of being condescendingly passive aggressive. It doesn't make for good conversation.

erttheking:

Because it was fitting for the conversation that we were having.

And therefore, I went with relevance to the conversation at hand.

You do have a really bad habit of being condescendingly passive aggressive. It doesn't make for good conversation.

You have a really bad habit of inferring things of others. You've apologised to me twice via PM, PMs I ignored because I knew that you weren't going to stop. So don't infer things again here. If you want a good conversation, your inferences will not help.

Zachary Amaranth:
Snip

I don't how you can complain about people not getting on people's rears for being pessimistic and not for being hopeful, I explain why hope is seen as preferable to despair, and then you move onto criticizing me for assuming those were the only two options. I just don't follow.

I'm not inferring anything. I haven't even read that conversation all the way through, I'm speaking from experience. You have a bad habit of acting that way all throughout the website. We've talked several times before and I've been on the receiving end of this attitude. I'm just telling you what I see.

Also, could you please not talk about what I have included in private messages? I put it in a private message specifically because I didn't want it to be seen by anyone else besides you.

FalloutJack:

Zachary Amaranth:
Boing

I didn't make one and you didn't earn one. Time for another poll.

@Everyone: Pardon me, Escapists. I hate to interrupt, but I must ask you all to indulge me for a second. Look back through news threads where you've probably spoken Zach here. Could you provide an account of his behavior, please? Does it help or hinder conversation? Does he further discussion or merely attack people? I feel that this sort of thing should be addressed. In fact, I feel that a thread regarding the collective voice of the internet ought to speak about someone collectively against it.

My conversation with him was perfectly pleasant. But really you look like the bad one trying to do this in this news thread. If you don't like someone on a forum, ignore them. Don't try and ask the forum's opinion on one person =/

Zachary Amaranth:

dyre:
I haven't seen any posts declaring that victory is assured (why would there be? That attitude makes no sense at all), so there's not much to reply to.

Convenient. Is this based on the same literalism as before? Because it looks like it. And that's bad faith.

What are you even talking about? And why are you acting like I owe you some kind of explanation, when my post wasn't even addressed to you?

Again...what's your problem? Are you trying to pick a fight?

erttheking:

I don't how you can complain about people not getting on people's rears for being pessimistic and not for being hopeful, I explain why hope is seen as preferable to despair

You mean, exactly what I was talking about. Cool, so where's the problem?

and then you move onto criticizing me for assuming those were the only two options.

I think you're inferring more again than was actually there. Unless you mean criticism in the loosest sense, but in my personal experience both in the internet and with you personally, I don't believe you do.

Also, could you please not talk about what I have included in private messages?

That would be difficult for me TO talk about. I never read them. I'm pretty sure you even have the power to verify, unless they delete from your sent box when I delete them from my inbox. All I did was touch upon the subject. But at the same time, you're accusing me of behaviour you've apologised for in the past, expect relevant data to come up. All I'm asking is you not repeat your previous misrepresentation of me, especially since it's clearly been an issue before. That's the problem with both the people you're talking about, too. Jack and Dyre have both lied about or misrepresented me, including editing out relevant data and responding to arguments or points I'm not making. It's probably natural that I come off as hostile, though the fact is I just don't appreciate dishonesty. I'm not angry or hostile, though as I've said before your repeated assertions can change that.

If you were sincere in your apologies, then don't repeat said behaviour. Otherwise, apologies are meaningless.

EDIT: moved quote to right spot to so the response made sense.

FalloutJack:
snip

Of course, this could all be solved by simply not dishonestly editing away my posts, putting words in my mouth, and then responding to those statements.

Is that really so difficult? Is it hard to address me on the merits or faults of my own, actual arguments? For example, can you demonstrate any of the claims I asked you for, such as the positive changes you're asserting?

I'll throw in my vote for The Escapist enacting the Ferengi Plan. Do whatever it takes I say...

Zachary Amaranth:
Poit

Probably, but you'd never believe me. Hence, why I decided to ask others. Gonna have to wait on that, so be patient.

FalloutJack:
poof

You don't need to make excuses. If you can't come up with evidence, just admit it. If you can, provide it. And most of all, don't make a claim in bad faith.

Zachary Amaranth:

FalloutJack:
poof

You don't need to make excuses. If you can't come up with evidence, just admit it. If you can, provide it. And most of all, don't make a claim in bad faith.

*Cites Evidence*

There's one right there. Rather, that's the latest in a long series of ignoring what is said and acting victimized. You do this frequently, and NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU. Drop the tone, stop being so defensive about it, and lighten up!

FalloutJack:

*Cites Evidence*

There's one right there. Rather, that's the latest in a long series of ignoring what is said and acting victimized. You do this frequently, and NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU. Drop the tone, stop being so defensive about it, and lighten up!

Wait, what? You just literally posted "cites evidence." What is that supposed to prove?

And stop with the dishonest claims. I have no attitude, note am I "acting victimised."

Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument?

Zachary Amaranth:

erttheking:

I don't how you can complain about people not getting on people's rears for being pessimistic and not for being hopeful, I explain why hope is seen as preferable to despair

You mean, exactly what I was talking about. Cool, so where's the problem?

and then you move onto criticizing me for assuming those were the only two options.

I think you're inferring more again than was actually there. Unless you mean criticism in the loosest sense, but in my personal experience both in the internet and with you personally, I don't believe you do.

Also, could you please not talk about what I have included in private messages?

That would be difficult for me TO talk about. I never read them. I'm pretty sure you even have the power to verify, unless they delete from your sent box when I delete them from my inbox. All I did was touch upon the subject. But at the same time, you're accusing me of behaviour you've apologised for in the past, expect relevant data to come up. All I'm asking is you not repeat your previous misrepresentation of me, especially since it's clearly been an issue before. That's the problem with both the people you're talking about, too. Jack and Dyre have both lied about or misrepresented me, including editing out relevant data and responding to arguments or points I'm not making. It's probably natural that I come off as hostile, though the fact is I just don't appreciate dishonesty. I'm not angry or hostile, though as I've said before your repeated assertions can change that.

If you were sincere in your apologies, then don't repeat said behaviour. Otherwise, apologies are meaningless.

EDIT: moved quote to right spot to so the response made sense.

I'm fairly certain that we're thinking of two different conversations here. When someone said "There's no reason to start waving the white flag yet" you replied "There's no reason to start celebrating yet either, but I bet you won't chastise people for doing that" I responded to you, trying to explain why he would most likely not chastise them, whereupon for some reason you remarked that you weren't aware that completely giving up or assuming victory were the only two options, where upon I said that I had never said that, only that overwhelming hope was better than overwhelming disrepair, and now you say that's exactly what you were talking about?...no...no you weren't. That or you were and you didn't do a very good job of making it clear, because right now I'm kinda lost.

I didn't mean to imply that you were lashing out at me, I meant criticism in a rather causal sense, as in "hey, that's not right."

It doesn't matter, please do not bring them up. They are private messages, as in, not meant for anyone but the sender and receiver. Ok, I'm accusing you of being less than friendly and rather passive aggressive, what I apologized for was being a bit Holier than thou and saying you should calm down when you weren't angry. Not exactly the same field, and I'm not 100% sure what it has to do with the current situation.

And really, here's the thing. FalloutJack, Dyver and I did not PM each other and conspire to all accuse you of the same behavior in the same thread just to mess with you. If three different people all say that you are acting in a certain way, I'm pretty sure it's not because they're twisting your words and trying to slander you, I'm pretty sure it's because the genuinely think that way.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, when we type out conversations on the internet things just come off as more hostile than we meant them to, it happens, but I have noticed this being a recurring thing with you. Like way back when when you said that I was "part of the problem" with the gaming industry when I said I pre-ordered games. You can be less than friendly at times and clearly several people agree with me. It might benefit everyone if you pulled back a bit. I am NOT trying to misrepresent you. Please, just consider what I'm saying.

Zachary Amaranth:

FalloutJack:

*Cites Evidence*

There's one right there. Rather, that's the latest in a long series of ignoring what is said and acting victimized. You do this frequently, and NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU. Drop the tone, stop being so defensive about it, and lighten up!

Wait, what? You just literally posted "cites evidence." What is that supposed to prove?

And stop with the dishonest claims. I have no attitude, note am I "acting victimised."

Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument?

And you know, when you are trying to argue that you aren't being passive aggressive, saying things like "Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument" is not what I would call making a very good case for yourself.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here