Net Neutrality

[Smitty-48]

Fairly certain that they sided with the pornographers on free speech. What are you on about?

The first crack at this was called the Decency In Communications Act, and the SCOTUS did side with the pornographers, against the Executive, under the 1st Amendment.

So this time around, the Democrat's target is "Fake News", but the work around is; the SCOTUS rules on laws, not regulations, so just hijack an existing law and get in done by Executive Order, to avoid the judiciary altogether.

What's the cover story? "Net Neutrality!"

[TheReal_ND]

I don't understand why I should care about degeneracy but I do understand the danger of fake news regulations. It's all here. This is something else Obama did btw. I don't understand how it's tied into NN but I have heard it is.



http://psyopregiment.blogspot.com/2017/ ... l.html?m=1

[TheReal_ND]

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.

[Smitty-48]

I don't understand why I should care about degeneracy

Well that was the wedge the Democrats were trying to exploit, back in 96', to get the GOP onside, it was an appeal to the social conservatives, as part of Triangulation, in order to get the federal governments centrally planned hooks into the internet.

Similar to what they did with the Assault Weapons Ban, which was a Triangulated appeal to Law and Order Conservatives.

This time around, the target is "fake news", as in Brietbart or whomever, the news is "fake" anytime it does not comport with the centrally planned narrative of the liberal media, and the wedge this time, is an appeal to "Net Neutrality", neutrality in this case being whatever the FCC says it is.

[TheReal_ND]

Truly I see now

[Smitty-48]

See the mechanism works like this, the Decency in Communications act would have made the ISP's liable for what was posted on the internet, but the SCOTUS said no, the ISP's are not the "publishers", so they are not liable.

So here comes Title II of the Communications Act, which overthrows that, without having to go past the judiciary, at which point, the ISP could be sued for "libel and defamation" for things which are posted on the internet, which is going to include the "fake news' over at Daily Stormer and everywhere else.

At which point, the ISP's have the justification they need, to silence whomever, not because they are suppressing free speech per se, but simply because they are liable as the "publishers".

"Muh Roads" is a public utility, you don't have a right to drive on the roads, it's a privilege, and the mechanism by which your privileges are revoked therein, is liability.

[TheReal_ND]

[Smitty-48]

Bingo. Trump is on point here, but the "Net Neutrality!" screechers are bum rushing it to try to get people to cuck out.

[TheReal_ND]

Bingo. Trump is on point here, but the "Net Neutrality!" screechers are bum rushing it to try to get people to cuck out.

Yeah well just remember I'm selling all you free market cucks up the river as soon as we go full 1488 DOTR GTKRWN

[Smitty-48]

Bingo. Trump is on point here, but the "Net Neutrality!" screechers are bum rushing it to try to get people to cuck out.

Yeah well just remember I'm selling all you free market cucks up the river as soon as we go full 1488 DOTR GTKRWN

Meh, anything can be exploited in terms of market forces, even if they are distorted, investors are not opposed to government protected leviathans, I have no ideology when it comes to making money, monopolies can be quite profitable, so do as you please, I can work the angles from either side of the fence.

I have nothing against Comcast, I just don't think it's a buy at $39, unless they crank that dividend up that is.