Marcuse wrote:Pretty sure we've had words about death threats before.
I did NOT see a "death threat" there. Saying that someone doesn't deserve to live is very harsh and even a little shitty, but it certainly doesn't constitute any kind of threat.
Marcuse wrote:Pretty sure we've had words about death threats before.
Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:If you bother to be greedy, you don't deserve to live. Ajit Pai is greedy, so it doesn't deserve to live.
Tesseracts wrote:In this age of falsehoods and lies, it's comforting to know some people are genuinely idiots.
Tesseracts wrote:In this age of falsehoods and lies, it's comforting to know some people are genuinely idiots.
KleinerKiller wrote:At the very least, even if the bill fails completely, there's still the prominent stalling in the courts
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
aviel wrote:KleinerKiller wrote:At the very least, even if the bill fails completely, there's still the prominent stalling in the courts
The thing is, a lawsuit doesn't inherently stall government action. The courts would have to issue a preliminary injunction against the government, which usually requires that the plaintiffs "must show a likelihood of success on the merits" of the case. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, at 29 (quotes ommitted) (2008). I think that plaintiffs probably won't succeed on the merits, so an injunction doesn't seem likely. This is really the legislature's problem to solve now.
aviel wrote:KleinerKiller wrote:At the very least, even if the bill fails completely, there's still the prominent stalling in the courts
The thing is, a lawsuit doesn't inherently stall government action. The courts would have to issue a preliminary injunction against the government, which usually requires that the plaintiffs "must show a likelihood of success on the merits" of the case. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, at 29 (quotes ommitted) (2008). I think that plaintiffs probably won't succeed on the merits, so an injunction doesn't seem likely. This is really the legislature's problem to solve now.
KleinerKiller wrote:Net neutrality will not survive this administration. And when it inevitably dies, I fear it will never come back, no matter who takes the office next (if anyone's even left to do it).
KleinerKiller wrote:It's happening.
No more frills, no more tiptoeing around it, no more slippery slopes -- Ajit "Soul Sodomy" Pai has announced the plan to repeal net neutrality altogether and hand over full control to ISPs, and will pursue enacting it on December 14th. Not everyone on the FCC is on board with this, and massive protests will hopefully put pressure in the other direction, but this smug piece of subhumanity will never let his vendetta go and there's a real chance he'll win out.
This is an all-or-nothing deadline. In 23 days, the internet as we know it may cease to exist for good.
KleinerKiller wrote:mancityfooty wrote:I'm looking at all my dvds (legally gotten, thank you...oh, no, mostly torrented :) and how time spent with someone is worth so much more than everything so...we'll see what happens.
Excuuuuuuuse me for caring about something that's basically the infrastructure of the 21st century, which much of modern society and numerous businesses large and small are based on, which is necessary in this day and age for free communication and expression, and which has been and should have continued to be critical to my career plan as a self-starting author.
Sorry I literally can't afford to be as flippant as you about this.
KleinerKiller wrote:With ISPs in control of the internet, I expect even less voter turnout in the future, because it'll be much harder / nigh-impossible to start a widespread movement that has any chance of changing things when they can simply slow your sites and accounts down to be virtually unusable. No, if it passes, net neutrality can never come back. Ever. By its very nature it's the last trigger pull. That's why now is such a pivotal time to stop things from getting permanently fucked up, and that's why I cannot abide by anyone being pessimistic at this stage.
DamianaRaven wrote:iMURDAu wrote:Most people won't care though.
I disagree. It's easy enough to love Trump when all his bullshit is affecting OTHER people, but when it comes into their own house and takes away their precious porn... *laughs meanly*
People are going to lazily and ignorantly let this happen, but then when the actual effects of it become apparent, there will be an ENORMOUS outcry and backlash. People (even - nay ESPECIALLY - the kind of morons who worship Trump) aren't going to want to suddenly start paying for multiple things they've been getting free. Poor people can't afford it and rich people wouldn't be rich if they just gave their money to any and every shyster who wanted it.
Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reclassified broadband as a Title II communication service with providers being "common carriers", not "information providers", in a party-line 3–2 vote.[3][4][5][6]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests