Guess Just What Happen

[jbird4049]

Oh FFS. Burn it all down. This shows that both sides are nothing more than props for the powerful people and corporations behind the scenes. Every time I get fooled into having some slight hope that our government will start doing what's right for it's people, they pull something like this.

F the Democucks. F the Republicucks. Politics in the US is nothing more than reality TV.

I'm just messing. I know you can't help counter signaling. Post wherever.

There actually was a point to the distinction I made though. A lot of people talk about running away from the Orwellian state whenever it becomes apparent we are being fucked. There really isn't anywhere for us to run to though.

Anyway, hopefully this bill fails.

Point of order I was agreeing with you rather than counter signalling.

There's no running away from these measures, we have to fight them. Avoiding the over reaction to terrorism is a good place to start. Protesting loudly to commercial organisations profiting from the abuse of these powers is another.
Unity is our strength division is our weakness. Fight the power bro.....

Welcome Comrades to the Revolution!

Wait, wait a moment...here come the police!

I'm reluctant to get caught up in this because it smells like "net neutrality".

People already accept EULA's that trade their privacy for a computer program or gadget. As the Wapo article even mentions, this is already being done on a huge scale by Google and Facebook. If people want to enter into a contract with an ISP where they let the ISP sell their history then it's their prerogative. Let an ISP offer a contract that protects privacy and reap the benefit of all the pissed off internet users.

We aren't fully anonymous on the internet and that sucks but it's reality. The censors at the FCC want to control the internet and this is a way to seize some control with a "narrative" that distracts people from the truth.

We no longer have a right to privacy, or a true expectation that a warrant will even be asked for.

A right you cannot enforced is a right you do not have.

Note how anybody not globalst/neomarxist is getting censored and pushed out of social networks already.

The time is coming when you won't be able to participate in discourse online to a large degree. Give them access to you browsing history, and you could get booted altogether, and possibly blocked from gainful employment as a professional.

I'm just messing. I know you can't help counter signaling. Post wherever.

There actually was a point to the distinction I made though. A lot of people talk about running away from the Orwellian state whenever it becomes apparent we are being fucked. There really isn't anywhere for us to run to though.

Anyway, hopefully this bill fails.

I'm just messing. I know you can't help counter signaling. Post wherever.

There actually was a point to the distinction I made though. A lot of people talk about running away from the Orwellian state whenever it becomes apparent we are being fucked. There really isn't anywhere for us to run to though.

Anyway, hopefully this bill fails.

The Panopticon was originally an idea for prisons. Which is what they are transforming our countries into. Supposedly for our protection from the Bad People. Joy

[Dand]

Wait, wait a moment...here come the police!

I'm reluctant to get caught up in this because it smells like "net neutrality".

People already accept EULA's that trade their privacy for a computer program or gadget. As the Wapo article even mentions, this is already being done on a huge scale by Google and Facebook. If people want to enter into a contract with an ISP where they let the ISP sell their history then it's their prerogative. Let an ISP offer a contract that protects privacy and reap the benefit of all the pissed off internet users.

We aren't fully anonymous on the internet and that sucks but it's reality. The censors at the FCC want to control the internet and this is a way to seize some control with a "narrative" that distracts people from the truth.

We no longer have a right to privacy, or a true expectation that a warrant will even be asked for.

A right you cannot enforced is a right you do not have.

I agree with what you're saying about our right to provacy but I'm the police because I don't want the feds controlling the internet? That doesn't make sense to me.

The government can't just make a law and save us from people's mass decision to give up our rights in exchange for convenient gadgets. They are corrupt and maybe in this situation Obama's administration was fucking over Verizon, Comcast, etc to profit the government and Google. To hell with all the parties involved, I'm not going to fight for either side when they're fighting over who gets to subjugate and monetize us. Net Neutrality was a scheme between ISP's and gov to encroach on our privacy and make some dosh and this FCC/FTC fight seems like it's a similar scheme but this time the big software boys like Google and Facebook were trying to screw ISP's.

[Speaker to Animals]

Libertarians are a cancer.

[Dand]

Libertarians are a cancer.

Are you against the proposed legislation?

If you are, why should Google, Adobe, and Facebook be allowed to sell our browsing data but Verizon and Comcast should not be allowed to?

[Speaker to Animals]

Libertarians are a cancer.

Are you against the proposed legislation?

If you are, why should Google, Adobe, and Facebook be allowed to sell our browsing data but Verizon and Comcast should not be allowed to?

Indeed I am.

I don't think those other companies should be allowed to sell data without our consent either.

[Dand]

Libertarians are a cancer.

Are you against the proposed legislation?

If you are, why should Google, Adobe, and Facebook be allowed to sell our browsing data but Verizon and Comcast should not be allowed to?

Indeed I am.

I don't think those other companies should be allowed to sell data without our consent either.

We agree about how it should be then. What is in place does not provide us with privacy though so it should be removed. It is only crony bullshit that selects who can profit from invading our privacy.

If privacy is really the issue then new legislation should be made to actually create and protect internet privacy. I believe the big media push about privacy now is totally phony and is hijacking the group of internet users that support internet privacy and using them for money. People want privacy but are being manipulated into arguing a BS position in defense of anti-privacy companies.

edit: I think the problem is that many Americans don't use the internet the way we do or cannot even use computers (Especially judges) and they do not believe we have a right to privacy online. Many people sincerely don't agree with us that privacy is a right.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Curious why you guys are stipulating "if this bill passes"... I'm given to understand that it's already through both houses of our Congress, and the only thing standing between it and a law is a spray-tanned monkey wearing a wig.

Welcome to 1984, bitches. You wanted 'something new', and you got it.

[TheReal_ND]

[Speaker to Animals]

Are you against the proposed legislation?

If you are, why should Google, Adobe, and Facebook be allowed to sell our browsing data but Verizon and Comcast should not be allowed to?

Indeed I am.

I don't think those other companies should be allowed to sell data without our consent either.

We agree about how it should be then. What is in place does not provide us with privacy though so it should be removed. It is only crony bullshit that selects who can profit from invading our privacy.

If privacy is really the issue then new legislation should be made to actually create and protect internet privacy. I believe the big media push about privacy now is totally phony and is hijacking the group of internet users that support internet privacy and using them for money. People want privacy but are being manipulated into arguing a BS position in defense of anti-privacy companies.

edit: I think the problem is that many Americans don't use the internet the way we do or cannot even use computers (Especially judges) and they do not believe we have a right to privacy online. Many people sincerely don't agree with us that privacy is a right.

It's pretty fucking simple: without regulations like this, we'd quickly devolve into a fucking surveillance state. Why do you think the government wants this so badly?

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.
-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961

[Dand]

Curious why you guys are stipulating "if this bill passes"... I'm given to understand that it's already through both houses of our Congress, and the only thing standing between it and a law is a spray-tanned monkey wearing a wig.

Welcome to 1984, bitches. You wanted 'something new', and you got it.

Yeah, you're right it passed.

A rule was in place for 3 months though. We're no more 1984 today then we were 3 months ago so there is no need for a "welcome".