OT: Net Neutrality maybe in Jeopardy

[Westside Gunn]

Maybe this will help people to get out more?

[Double Helix]

Spoiler:

I’m really going to try and ignore this topic after posting this because I don’t have a lot of time today. However, I think it’s important to share that my earlier comparisons to guns rights advocates and privacy advocacy wasn’t just some rude remark I tossed in there out of the blue. There are parallels between the two that may be difficult for the privacy rights advocate to see from their perspective. This is a big part of the reason why I have never seen assessment of crime or the protection of society from it as a truly right or left issue. I firmly believe you can be a Lefty who worries about violent crime and who can reach across the aisle and partner up with a conservative on an idea related to crime if it’s a good one.

The parallels that I see between those opposed to better combating 21st century crime with 21st century tech updates because they’re clinging to privacy rights envisioned before the internet and why I see those opposed to common sense gun law changes because they cling to guns rights envisioned a long time ago is basically this. People who want common sense gun laws:

1) By doing so are more in favor and trust of the democracy we’ve built and the government control we have, and the various checks and balances of that structure, than we are in favor of the concerns of the guns rights advocate’s passion for gun laws as they exist and any criminals who feel similarly alongside them.

2) Are in favor of making a change to update for increased threats that didn’t exist when the original definitions for the right were given. The updates to new and more powerful weaponry might even be less of a true disruption to the status quo than what the internet was to communication in general.

3) Are willing to compromise and sacrifice slightly on a personal freedom in order to help build a safer society for others.

4) Are clearly not on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others because of their willingness to sacrifice aspects of their own personal freedom to a gun or to total privacy in the hopes of creating a safer society for others.

5) Are witnessing trends and changes in criminal behavior that’s allowing them to do more harm and be stopped less. This leads them to believe things will only get worse in the years and decades ahead if some change isn’t allowed. They want to get ahead of the slide in society not only because of where things are but where they will continue to head.

6) Growing up in Canada and not being able to walk around with guns from birth up has made what’s possible in the states seem outrageous to us because we have lived good lives without many of us carrying guns where we go. We are proof that sacrificing a little on our rights to guns made us safer than them. If we had grown up in an country that had better anticipated the impact of the internet the way it had similar communications tools we’d feel similar.

I look at each of those 6 points and I can draw a clear parallel between the common sense gun law changes and a common sense supporter of making use of new technology and surveillance to better combat criminals who are making use or technology.

By contrast, the most ardent and rigid of privacy fanatics that I’ve spoken with truly remind me of gun rights fanatics because of these parallels:

1) Extreme fear of collapse of all democratic pillars and checks and balances and of a government take over where the compromise offered was abused in a manner that makes life become a dystopian sci-fi movie. In the case of guns rights advocates it’s that the military enslaves the people. In the case of the privacy rights advocate it’s a 1984 existence where all of us would be jailed for our thoughts. The gun rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both use fear of a distant dystopian future to combat the fear of present day issues.

2) A belief that government should shrink and have less power. Less power to enact laws to protect the most vulnerable from the worst criminals and predators among us because of a belief that this won’t happen to me or anyone I know. In the case of the guns rights advocate they believe they have the firepower to stop crime themselves. The privacy rights advocate believes they won’t fall victim to crime by sheer odds and that’s good enough for them. In both cases it’s more about the individual and those closest to them directly and less about the people who will be impacted.

3) The guns rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both often utilize fear hyperbole that hasn’t actually been tabled by proponents of the other side. In the gun rights advocate’s case “Background checks and other common sense adjustments = “They’re stealing our guns!” In the privacy rights advocate’s case “Collection of data that could be shared by companies with law enforcement to prosecute criminals and court ordered surveillance on persons of interest and suspects” = “They’re going to be spying on all of us and monitoring all of our thoughts!”

4) The coalition and organization of the groups pushing back on data collection and surveillance of any kind (with sufficient oversight and court order documentation) and the coalition and organization of the gun lobby are powerful and vocal. There’s not really an organized common sense gun law coalition equivalent. People are afraid to organize against them or make a strong case for a possible reduction of mass shootings if some small changes were made. It’s just a polling topic. We are still in the infancy of security updates related to technology so the organization and loudness of people in favor of some technology updates to better combat serious crimes has been around even less. Both sides vastly outnumbered on the megaphone by the other and only really getting a chance to explore their concepts in the media when something happens that reminds that an update of some kind may be needed.


5) An apathetic belief that crime isn’t too bad in the present, and that the innovation in weapons technology or internet technology to do more is overstated and that the changes suggested won’t help save any lives.

6) The gun rights advocate has grown up around a life where gun laws were always allowed and believe that they’re necessary now to stop the government if need be. The privacy rights advocate in Canada would of course feel similar because we didn’t foresee problems related to the internet and didn’t seek to give law enforcement an updated tool set at that time. If we had we would be living similarly (just as we have without guns) and not feared an update so much.


So, that can be a big difference of opinion obviously and each side feels the way they do for their own reasons. I’m absolutely outnumbered in my belief at present so I don’t think anyone that’s super concerned about government or law enforcement privacy issues has much to worry about for another decade or two when these issues and challenges for law enforcement start becoming more apparent with non-guilty votes in high profile cases and online groups who met online, plotted online, messaged exclusively, and carried out heinous acts on innocent Canadians for reasons other than terror as a group are eventually brought to justice far too late and the details of their online organization come to light in the press. The internet brings like-minded people together and we have yet to see what really happens beyond terror recruitment when all of the pedophiles and rapists and child abductors and killers (and to a less severe extent fraudsters) decide to combine their efforts the way the internet has brought countless other groups together. If we want to keep up to date we are going to need to ensure law enforcement is given an increased set of tools that go beyond gun and badge and photographer and undercover operation because crime will continue to evolve. Just as weapons will. We trust our institutions enough in so many other ways. Not only with the data they already have but with our lives. This study on cameras, which is not really the focus of this thread or post, is pretty interesting and balanced. Similar to any debate though every study that points one way or another is the one most trumpeted by the proponents.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

if i thought that at this point any one was reading or believing your illogical extremism I would break down in detail the mountain of logical fallacies you have built up in your latest fake news essay. But since it is clear that not one single person in this entire thread shares ANY of the same concerns as you and that you are completely isolated in your stubborn and mistaken equation of net neutrality with protecting criminals, I won't bother.

I will however point out that you are now clearly implying that everyone in this thread who believes in the importance of net neutrality is "on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others" and comparing us to the psychos in the NRA. (Point 4 above) Just thought people should know this.

Is there a useful and necessary conversation to be had about crime enforcement/prevention and technology? Of course. And since you are so desperate to have it, I encourage you to do it, just not in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with that topic. Because in all your thousands and thousands of words of protestation, you have never offered ONE IOTA of evidence or even ANY logical rationale for your argument that sacrificing net neutrality will somehow decrease crime. It's a red herring, for which you're more than willing to sacrifice everyone else's rights and freedoms, while explicitly defending the rights of the big ISPs to gouge us, refusing to acknowledge the vast public record of political and police abuse of authority and deceit that justifies suspicion about handing over precious personal tracking information, and comparing the 76% of citizens who support net neutrality to 'fanatics' like the pro-assault weapon NRA. It's a twisted performance no matter how well meaning you believe it to be.

I thought we went over this many times already.

1) I already apologized for derailing the Net Neutrality thread with my own rant on privacy fanatics. I shared that despite my initial posts on the massive battle between billion dollar companies at the start of this thread, which you dismissed ( which this writer also thought was interesting enough to highlight in an article for all the world to read ), I actually support net neutrality and your concerns about it. I shared the money side to explore that.

2) I shared that I derailed it not because of net neutrality itself, which I support, but because I’m frustrated with privacy fanatics battling law enforcement and the intelligence communities on every single attempt to keep up and because I’ve noticed some of those same groups trying to piggyback the momentum and bipartisan support of net neutrality to try to further push privacy agenda in general.

These two things were made quite clear on more than one occasion. This does not mean net neutrality supporters are also all privacy fanatics. It meant some privacy fanatics see net neutrality as an opening for their larger play on privacy.

You then insulted me as an alt right person to which I likened privacy fanatics to gun fanatics. When that comparison warranted further expansion — potentially because in your own mind you’ve convinced yourself that every single thing you’re passionate about could only be a left wing type of ideal that’s more about others than yourself and couldn’t in any way be thought of as selfish or anti-collectivist — I laid them out.

I also admitted that these ideas and perspectives on surveillance updates were currently outnumbered by privacy advocates, and that I expected the same on a Raptors basketball board that skews younger, male and has at times made it clear they are not trusting of the agencies tasked with keeping our society safe. However, everywhere else I’ve had the conversation, online or otherwise, rationally and calmly (particularly when there was heated Bill C51 debate in Canada) even my left of Center audiences have been receptive. Many Canadians are open-minded and want to at least hear the other side of a largely one-sided debate about concern.

You can insult me or my high word counts or my long ramblings but I’ve always posted long, and while there’s always a few in every thread who complain about that, I’m not too worried about lack of audience. At nearly 20,000 And1s or so since they started tracking those, despite rarely posting on the general or off topic boards, and with thousands of views in this thread, I know my long rambles still end up being read plenty and if even a few come away thinking, “Hmmm, that is something worth following on bills in the future so that law enforcement and intelligence is given adequate tools to keep up with advances in crime,” or realizes that you can be socially progressive, a big government socialist that supports progressive, long-term initiatives to reduce income inequality ensure minority groups receive equal opportunity, and still have concerns like mine regarding crime then it will have been worth it.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[JaysRule25]

You have to wonder how a body of government can keep pushing for this when the public have made it clear where they stand on the matter. At what point do you wonder why they are pushing for something the people do not want?

There's no room for wonder anymore, if there was to begin with. This is policy designed by and for the large ISPs that runs contrary to the interests of the vast majority of Americans. Kinda like the rest of the Trump/GOP policies.

Read up on Pai, the new FCC chair. He's a real piece of work, and pretty clearly a corporate shill for Verizon. Trump said he'd drain the swamp, yet in position after position he's nominated/appointed a fox to guard the henhouse.

I hope we see the same outrage about Net Neutrality that we saw with EA and Battlefront 2. The only difference is none of the Media is really talking about it because they are run by the same companies that have a lot to gain from removing NN.

Speaking of which, losing Net Neutrality could have disastrous results for online gamers as well.

Imagine that you can only play games online from certain publishers without paying extra. That's the fate that awaits us. Under Pai's plan, Activision, EA, Valve, or whoever can pay an ISP for preferential treatment. That treatment doesn't have to mean they just get faster connections either; it can mean their competition gets throttled.

Soon you may have to pay extra to your ISP per month to open the ports on your connection to even let you connect to Steam, Origin, Uplay, Xbox Live, PSN, and other gaming services. You might have to deal with a gaming traffic allotment you have to refill with cash.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/357433-end-net-neutrality-disastrous-online-gaming

[beanbag]

Spoiler:

I’m really going to try and ignore this topic after posting this because I don’t have a lot of time today. However, I think it’s important to share that my earlier comparisons to guns rights advocates and privacy advocacy wasn’t just some rude remark I tossed in there out of the blue. There are parallels between the two that may be difficult for the privacy rights advocate to see from their perspective. This is a big part of the reason why I have never seen assessment of crime or the protection of society from it as a truly right or left issue. I firmly believe you can be a Lefty who worries about violent crime and who can reach across the aisle and partner up with a conservative on an idea related to crime if it’s a good one.

The parallels that I see between those opposed to better combating 21st century crime with 21st century tech updates because they’re clinging to privacy rights envisioned before the internet and why I see those opposed to common sense gun law changes because they cling to guns rights envisioned a long time ago is basically this. People who want common sense gun laws:

1) By doing so are more in favor and trust of the democracy we’ve built and the government control we have, and the various checks and balances of that structure, than we are in favor of the concerns of the guns rights advocate’s passion for gun laws as they exist and any criminals who feel similarly alongside them.

2) Are in favor of making a change to update for increased threats that didn’t exist when the original definitions for the right were given. The updates to new and more powerful weaponry might even be less of a true disruption to the status quo than what the internet was to communication in general.

3) Are willing to compromise and sacrifice slightly on a personal freedom in order to help build a safer society for others.

4) Are clearly not on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others because of their willingness to sacrifice aspects of their own personal freedom to a gun or to total privacy in the hopes of creating a safer society for others.

5) Are witnessing trends and changes in criminal behavior that’s allowing them to do more harm and be stopped less. This leads them to believe things will only get worse in the years and decades ahead if some change isn’t allowed. They want to get ahead of the slide in society not only because of where things are but where they will continue to head.

6) Growing up in Canada and not being able to walk around with guns from birth up has made what’s possible in the states seem outrageous to us because we have lived good lives without many of us carrying guns where we go. We are proof that sacrificing a little on our rights to guns made us safer than them. If we had grown up in an country that had better anticipated the impact of the internet the way it had similar communications tools we’d feel similar.

I look at each of those 6 points and I can draw a clear parallel between the common sense gun law changes and a common sense supporter of making use of new technology and surveillance to better combat criminals who are making use or technology.

By contrast, the most ardent and rigid of privacy fanatics that I’ve spoken with truly remind me of gun rights fanatics because of these parallels:

1) Extreme fear of collapse of all democratic pillars and checks and balances and of a government take over where the compromise offered was abused in a manner that makes life become a dystopian sci-fi movie. In the case of guns rights advocates it’s that the military enslaves the people. In the case of the privacy rights advocate it’s a 1984 existence where all of us would be jailed for our thoughts. The gun rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both use fear of a distant dystopian future to combat the fear of present day issues.

2) A belief that government should shrink and have less power. Less power to enact laws to protect the most vulnerable from the worst criminals and predators among us because of a belief that this won’t happen to me or anyone I know. In the case of the guns rights advocate they believe they have the firepower to stop crime themselves. The privacy rights advocate believes they won’t fall victim to crime by sheer odds and that’s good enough for them. In both cases it’s more about the individual and those closest to them directly and less about the people who will be impacted.

3) The guns rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both often utilize fear hyperbole that hasn’t actually been tabled by proponents of the other side. In the gun rights advocate’s case “Background checks and other common sense adjustments = “They’re stealing our guns!” In the privacy rights advocate’s case “Collection of data that could be shared by companies with law enforcement to prosecute criminals and court ordered surveillance on persons of interest and suspects” = “They’re going to be spying on all of us and monitoring all of our thoughts!”

4) The coalition and organization of the groups pushing back on data collection and surveillance of any kind (with sufficient oversight and court order documentation) and the coalition and organization of the gun lobby are powerful and vocal. There’s not really an organized common sense gun law coalition equivalent. People are afraid to organize against them or make a strong case for a possible reduction of mass shootings if some small changes were made. It’s just a polling topic. We are still in the infancy of security updates related to technology so the organization and loudness of people in favor of some technology updates to better combat serious crimes has been around even less. Both sides vastly outnumbered on the megaphone by the other and only really getting a chance to explore their concepts in the media when something happens that reminds that an update of some kind may be needed.


5) An apathetic belief that crime isn’t too bad in the present, and that the innovation in weapons technology or internet technology to do more is overstated and that the changes suggested won’t help save any lives.

6) The gun rights advocate has grown up around a life where gun laws were always allowed and believe that they’re necessary now to stop the government if need be. The privacy rights advocate in Canada would of course feel similar because we didn’t foresee problems related to the internet and didn’t seek to give law enforcement an updated tool set at that time. If we had we would be living similarly (just as we have without guns) and not feared an update so much.


So, that can be a big difference of opinion obviously and each side feels the way they do for their own reasons. I’m absolutely outnumbered in my belief at present so I don’t think anyone that’s super concerned about government or law enforcement privacy issues has much to worry about for another decade or two when these issues and challenges for law enforcement start becoming more apparent with non-guilty votes in high profile cases and online groups who met online, plotted online, messaged exclusively, and carried out heinous acts on innocent Canadians for reasons other than terror as a group are eventually brought to justice far too late and the details of their online organization come to light in the press. The internet brings like-minded people together and we have yet to see what really happens beyond terror recruitment when all of the pedophiles and rapists and child abductors and killers (and to a less severe extent fraudsters) decide to combine their efforts the way the internet has brought countless other groups together. If we want to keep up to date we are going to need to ensure law enforcement is given an increased set of tools that go beyond gun and badge and photographer and undercover operation because crime will continue to evolve. Just as weapons will. We trust our institutions enough in so many other ways. Not only with the data they already have but with our lives. This study on cameras, which is not really the focus of this thread or post, is pretty interesting and balanced. Similar to any debate though every study that points one way or another is the one most trumpeted by the proponents.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

if i thought that at this point any one was reading or believing your illogical extremism I would break down in detail the mountain of logical fallacies you have built up in your latest fake news essay. But since it is clear that not one single person in this entire thread shares ANY of the same concerns as you and that you are completely isolated in your stubborn and mistaken equation of net neutrality with protecting criminals, I won't bother.

I will however point out that you are now clearly implying that everyone in this thread who believes in the importance of net neutrality is "on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others" and comparing us to the psychos in the NRA. (Point 4 above) Just thought people should know this.

Is there a useful and necessary conversation to be had about crime enforcement/prevention and technology? Of course. And since you are so desperate to have it, I encourage you to do it, just not in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with that topic. Because in all your thousands and thousands of words of protestation, you have never offered ONE IOTA of evidence or even ANY logical rationale for your argument that sacrificing net neutrality will somehow decrease crime. It's a red herring, for which you're more than willing to sacrifice everyone else's rights and freedoms, while explicitly defending the rights of the big ISPs to gouge us, refusing to acknowledge the vast public record of political and police abuse of authority and deceit that justifies suspicion about handing over precious personal tracking information, and comparing the 76% of citizens who support net neutrality to 'fanatics' like the pro-assault weapon NRA. It's a twisted performance no matter how well meaning you believe it to be.

I thought we went over this many times already.

1) I already apologized for derailing the Net Neutrality thread with my own rant on privacy fanatics. I shared that despite my initial posts on the massive battle between billion dollar companies at the start of this thread, which you dismissed ( which this writer also thought was interesting enough to highlight in an article for all the world to read ), I actually support net neutrality and your concerns about it. I shared the money side to explore that.

2) I shared that I derailed it not because of net neutrality itself, which I support, but because I’m frustrated with privacy fanatics battling law enforcement and the intelligence communities on every single attempt to keep up and because I’ve noticed some of those same groups trying to piggyback the momentum and bipartisan support of net neutrality to try to further push privacy agenda in general.

These two things were made quite clear on more than one occasion. This does not mean net neutrality supporters are also all privacy fanatics. It meant some privacy fanatics see net neutrality as an opening for their larger play on privacy.

You then insulted me as an alt right person to which I likened privacy fanatics to gun fanatics. When that comparison warranted further expansion — potentially because in your own mind you’ve convinced yourself that every single thing you’re passionate about could only be a left wing type of ideal that’s more about others than yourself and couldn’t in any way be thought of as selfish or anti-collectivist — I laid them out.

I also admitted that these ideas and perspectives on surveillance updates were currently outnumbered by privacy advocates, and that I expected the same on a Raptors basketball board that skews younger, male and has at times made it clear they are not trusting of the agencies tasked with keeping our society safe. However, everywhere else I’ve had the conversation, online or otherwise, rationally and calmly (particularly when there was heated Bill C51 debate in Canada) even my left of Center audiences have been receptive. Many Canadians are open-minded and want to at least hear the other side of a largely one-sided debate about concern.

You can insult me or my high word counts or my long ramblings but I’ve always posted long, and while there’s always a few in every thread who complain about that, I’m not too worried about lack of audience. At nearly 20,000 And1s or so since they started tracking those, despite rarely posting on the general or off topic boards, and with thousands of views in this thread, I know my long rambles still end up being read plenty and if even a few come away thinking, “Hmmm, that is something worth following on bills in the future so that law enforcement and intelligence is given adequate tools to keep up with advances in crime,” or realizes that you can be socially progressive, a big government socialist that supports progressive, long-term initiatives to reduce income inequality ensure minority groups receive equal opportunity, and still have concerns like mine regarding crime then it will have been worth it.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Apologizes for derailing thread in paragraph 1.

Posts 5 more paragraphs, none of which have to do with Net Neutrality specifically, but rather his own previous derailing posts and then a humble brag on his number of And 1's (lol).

Again folks, the only relevant thing here is how important preserving net neutrality is, I feel as though that point needs to be said again. DH himself agrees with net neutrality as well (according to him), which is also the only relevant point among all of his ramblings.

[Lord_Zedd]

There's no room for wonder anymore, if there was to begin with. This is policy designed by and for the large ISPs that runs contrary to the interests of the vast majority of Americans. Kinda like the rest of the Trump/GOP policies.

Read up on Pai, the new FCC chair. He's a real piece of work, and pretty clearly a corporate shill for Verizon. Trump said he'd drain the swamp, yet in position after position he's nominated/appointed a fox to guard the henhouse.

I hope we see the same outrage about Net Neutrality that we saw with EA and Battlefront 2. The only difference is none of the Media is really talking about it because they are run by the same companies that have a lot to gain from removing NN.

Speaking of which, losing Net Neutrality could have disastrous results for online gamers as well.

Imagine that you can only play games online from certain publishers without paying extra. That's the fate that awaits us. Under Pai's plan, Activision, EA, Valve, or whoever can pay an ISP for preferential treatment. That treatment doesn't have to mean they just get faster connections either; it can mean their competition gets throttled.

Soon you may have to pay extra to your ISP per month to open the ports on your connection to even let you connect to Steam, Origin, Uplay, Xbox Live, PSN, and other gaming services. You might have to deal with a gaming traffic allotment you have to refill with cash.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/357433-end-net-neutrality-disastrous-online-gaming

Pay extra $$$ for faster connection just to be competitive? Online services like battle.net can easily deflect their server issue lag and blame it on the customers. Customers can also foot the bill too.
Pay to win in the saddest way possible.... Not an overpowered weapon, but reliable and fast internet connection.

This is going to kill Indie developers who can't keep up with rising costs. Imagine a world where gaming only exists in EA/Activision/Ubisoft........ no reason for them to innovate and compete against the likes of PUBG, Counterstrike or Rocket League.

Can't imagine the reaction of the esports scene.