Julian Assange Tries to Convince Trump to Not Repeal Net Neutrality

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,194
Julian Assange has taken to twitter to try to convince President Trump that it's not in his best interest to fully repeal net neutrality. He's appealing to President Trump's use of twitter and tells him that his opponents control most internet companies and that they could make his tweets load slowly. Not to mention they would let CNN load fast. You have to hand it to Julian because he knows the President loves him some twitter and hates CNN. I don't think it's going to work, but it is pretty funny.

"Dear @realDonaldTrump: 'net neutrality' of some form is important," Assange tweeted Tuesday. "Your opponents control most internet companies. Without neutrality they can make your tweets load slowly, CNN load fast and infest everyone's phones with their ads. Careful."
 
It needs to be repealed in ORDER to keep the net neutral.

The name is douplespeak. If you want to understand why repeal is important, read this:

 
Zion Halcyon said:
It needs to be repealed in ORDER to keep the net neutral.

The name is douplespeak. If you want to understand why repeal is important, read this:
Click to expand...

from that thread: "(2) The purpose of Net Neutrality is to take regulatory oversight of the Internet out of the FTC's hands and hand it over to the FCC."


...what? https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...41/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet

"Specifically, the Open Internet Order adopts bright-line rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; a rule preventing broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging consumers or edge providers from reaching one another on the Internet; and provides for enhanced transparency into network management practices, network performance, and commercial terms of broadband Internet access service. These rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access services. The Order reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act."
 
Zion Halcyon said:
It needs to be repealed in ORDER to keep the net neutral.

The name is douplespeak. If you want to understand why repeal is important, read this:

Click to expand...

Your source is bogus. It's a picture of an article headline. Go to that posters blog and you'll find it's just that, a blog, which is either just a single person's opinion (often without research as they just want to drive traffic with clickbait articles) or a propaganda site (they're frequent, by masking them as "blogs" people tend to buy into the social proof aspect).

So either you've been drinking the ISP koolaid or you're a shill.

I know Reddit is full of misinformation corporate shills (they're easy to spot, same people pop up with the same pro-corporate stance whenever that corporations name is mentioned) ... but I assume [H] is small enough to avoid them.
 
Last edited:
Spidey329 said:
Your source is bogus. It's a picture of an article headline. Go to that posters blog and you'll find it's just that, a blog, which is either just a single person's opinion (often without research as they just want to drive traffic with clickbait articles) or a propaganda site (they're frequent, by masking them as "blogs" people tend to buy into the social proof aspect).

So either you've been drinking the ISP koolaid or you're a shill.

I know Reddit is full of misinformation corporate shills (they're easy to spot, same people pop up with the same pro-corporate stance whenever that corporations name is mentioned) ... but I assume [H] is small enough to avoid them.
Click to expand...

You're too forgiving. Most sycophants are volunteers, not paid shills.

Most websites that loyally post regime provided talking points do so without coercion, they're happy to be part of the movement.

The [H] is certainly not immune by any stretch of the imagination, no place is.

Edit: I lost any regard for Assange and Wikileaks way back when they decided to publish the names of Afghanis that were cooperating with allied forces. That's a total disregard for people's safety. It's also a flagrant betrayal of their self-appointed position as a champion of the people. People died because of that, translators and their families.
 
Last edited:
So, realistically there is no way to stop this from going forward in this legislative cycle?
 
Spidey329 said:
Your source is bogus. It's a picture of an article headline. Go to that posters blog and you'll find it's just that, a blog, which is either just a single person's opinion (often without research as they just want to drive traffic with clickbait articles) or a propaganda site (they're frequent, by masking them as "blogs" people tend to buy into the social proof aspect).

So either you've been drinking the ISP koolaid or you're a shill.

I know Reddit is full of misinformation corporate shills (they're easy to spot, same people pop up with the same pro-corporate stance whenever that corporations name is mentioned) ... but I assume [H] is small enough to avoid them.
Click to expand...
More of "Obama did it, must be repealed" type person...
 
Well... tactics like this have worked in the past, just look at the ACA numbers before & after Jimmy Kimmel pleaded with people to sign up for the most amazing health insurance known as TrumpCare at which point he directed everyone to the ACA signup portal.
 
Ajit had business interests that will pay big if he can overturn net neutrality, which he is trying to do.

He's a piece of greedy shit last I checked.
 
aeliusg said:
So, realistically there is no way to stop this from going forward in this legislative cycle?
Click to expand...

They can put something back after the next election. Of course your ISP may no longer allow sites that hurt their political positions to be viewed by then.
 
Net Neutrality in 10 seconds (for slow learners)

I pay my ISP X dollars per month for Y speed.
Google (or other intarwebs company) pays their ISP x dollars per month for Y speed.
My ISP shouldn’t be able to fark with what sites I choose to use.

What ISP’s fighting net neutrality want

I pay my ISP X dollars per month for Y speed.
Google (or other intarwebs company) pays their ISP x dollars per month for Y speed.
My ISP charges extra, and only the companies that pay up can I access at the speed I pay for already.

OR

I pay my ISP X dollars per month for Y speed.
Google (or other intarwebs company) pays their ISP x dollars per month for Y speed.
Then I have to pay extra if I want to use Google, Netflix, Facebook, or Game at the speed I pay for already.

Idiots.
 
Kalabalana said:
Ajit had business interests that will pay big if he can overturn net neutrality, which he is trying to do.

He's a piece of greedy shit last I checked.
Click to expand...

His offshore accounts look pretty good right now I bet and ever better in a few weeks if this all goes through.
 
Pyro411 said:
Well... tactics like this have worked in the past, just look at the ACA numbers before & after Jimmy Kimmel pleaded with people to sign up for the most amazing health insurance known as TrumpCare at which point he directed everyone to the ACA signup portal.
Click to expand...

I'll say this about Jimmy, if he didn't bring his son into the spotlight, he wouldn't of been whining later about how some people won't leave his son alone. It's like celebrities don't realize their lives aren't open season already in this fucked up celebrity obsessed culture, so they think opening their mouths and sharing their issues on hot topics wouldn't be a problem with some.
 
RayderR6 said:
I'll say this about Jimmy, if he didn't bring his son into the spotlight, he wouldn't of been whining later about how some people won't leave his son alone. It's like celebrities don't realize their lives aren't open season already in this fucked up celebrity obsessed culture, so they think opening their mouths and sharing their issues on hot topics wouldn't be a problem with some.
Click to expand...
I do not particularly like Kimmel, but I somewhat feel for the guy. In his view, the ACA can help save people, specifically people that have issues exactly like the ones he had. I can assume hes had trouble sleeping at night if he did not try to help that.
 
Ridiculous...apparently we're engaging in juvenile argumentative tactics. Answering a question with a question and sitting back with a smug attitude like you somehow addressed or answered it...because you think your question is that deep or something?

Regardless, the answer to your "unanswerable" question that was supposed to stump us is that net neutrality "fixes" the problem of ISPs prioritizing their own content and limiting access to their competitors data. This concern is obvious and discussed all over the place at such length that your response simply reads like a troll attempt.
 
FTA (final sentence): "Until then, don't fall for well-crafted and well-rehearsed obfuscations. Ask to see the facts, and decide for yourself"

I'll leave these right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Furchtgott-Roth https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/diana-furchtgott-roth
https://www.hudson.org/experts/629-harold-furchtgott-roth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Those links are just a warm up to what these two people do. I've read enough of Diana's BS over the years and she is either a Builderberg or wants to be. She is constantly touting the private enterprise over government, imo because the government is beholden to the people (supposed to be anyway) and private enterprise isn't, she is opine for big-money. These two constantly opine giving the power of the people to the power of the few. It is no surprise to me how Harold is making 2 points over and over in his article, A) Pai doesn't reference 'net neutrality much or at all' (maybe Harold only understands a threat if the threat is blunt and not subtle) and B) the "media" is against the "public utility classification" and turning it into an attack on our net neutrality (what Harold is really fighting for here is to make sure that classification doesn't happen because it threatens the Furchtgott-Roth goals of private enterprise running the world instead of the people). He is protecting ISP freedom under the guise of lost innovation if it isn't protected, but really he is protecting the ISP from being controlled by the people instead of the few big money hands that will threaten smaller ISP innovation.

Now about Pai himself, I've heard him say many good things and I don't think he is the evil guy (for the most part) that he is made out to be, however, I don't have the time to read through his ridiculously long pages and speeches to dissect the subtle issues that may arise from what he says, like Diana and Harold make so easy for me to spot.

This is all my opinion of course, YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Data should run as fast as the source can churn it out. Poor broadband coverage, and infrastructure already do enough to throttle things down.
No need to throttle things further to charge extra for data to reach you at their normal spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top