F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

submitted by magnora7 from nytimes.com

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not to worry I have so many ISP choices, like att and comcast and... shit.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah exactly. This wouldn't be so bad if we had an actual competitive market. But that's difficult because they're all sharing the same infrastructure. Which is why internet should be regulated like a utility instead of just letting corporations monopolize the heck out of it.

[–]AlterNative 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Carl Jung observed, “The foundation of all mental illness is the unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering.”

And so it goes with every human malady [here, the destruction of Net neutrality], the greatest suffering from which results from the unwillingness to experience the suffering of the disease itself.

The masses are fucked every which way to breakfast and it's neither going away nor ever getting anything but worse.

But "they" love it when the masses get involved in working against the slavery. "They" love it when people believe that they can affect change for the better and have not been reduced to the utter despair of having nothing left to lose. Optimism keeps the masses playing the game.

To my way of thinking, the best response to the insanity of the ruling elites is to simply opt out at every opportunity. When the Internet becomes untenable, accept the loss and the pain and throw it out with the television, radio, nearly all of the print media, and other garbage pickup.

At this point in the declining state of industrial human society, there is simply no compelling reason to attempt to hold onto privileges that were brief gifts of an intense glut of exploitable energy.

Instead focus on the possibilities of trying to feed yourself. Humans have had to do that for most of their existence.

How on that?

[–]Odnovo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The thing is that less people will use the internet so casually, provided that this will truly make the internet more expensive to use (which I don't know at this point). This could very well result in people actually having lives outside of the internet, the gradual end of the rampant narcissism currently predominant in younger generations, and the end (or at least a moderate limitation) in the masses being manipulated through misinformation. Call me crazy, but this could work out for the best in the end.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

and the end (or at least a moderate limitation) in the masses being manipulated through misinformation.

I appreciate your optimism, but I see no reason why the manipulation would slow

[–]Odnovo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is because the predominant catalyst for spreading misinformation is through the internet. When the volume is reduced through the regulation of bandwidth, so will the extent of the manipulation. This is assuming that it will be so simple, of course.

[–]oldaccount29 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The pessimistic view (and in my view more realistic) is that the masses will be led to websites that toe the line.

We see this with politicians who dont act out too much, like Bernie and Ron Paul, we see it with journalists who dont try to break stories that cross the wrong people, we see this with how face book is deciding which news is credible, and google alters its search results in a similar way. The list is essentially endless.

I expect if certain people get their way, the internet is just become more vapid that it is, with more entertainment, but also with more propaganda blended in. Sites that attempt to spread real info will be bullied out.

I dont know this for a fact, but I gave a few examples of a million where it has worked the same in the past. I see no reason to believe it would work differently.