internet-regulation

Hey everybody if you want a free and open internet then protect net neutrality by going to this website [gofccyourself.com] that john oliver created thatll take you to a form thatll let you tell the FCC to keep the Internet the way you like it. This took me less than 5 minutes. Just go to the website, click express, fill out the form, and tell the fcc to keep net neutrality laws under title 2 regulations in whatever way you feel is most appropriate. Keep in mind, the fcc doesnt always read through all the responses, so completing the form is more important than what you actually put in it

independent.co.uk
Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack
New international agreements should be introduced to regulate the internet in the light of the London Bridge terror attack, Theresa May has said. The Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were not currently doing enough. The Prime Minister made the comments outside Downing Street on Sunday morning in the aftermath of the van and knife attack that saw seven people killed and dozens injured.

May says she wants to “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online”.

So this is the logical conclusion of the reactionary anti-safe space rhetoric, government censorship of the internet by an aspiring dictator. This has nothing to do with preventing terrorism (which won’t be possible so long as foreign policy and arms sales continue as they are) and everything to do with preventing criticism of the government.

Because the government can call whatever it doesn’t like “extremist” or “dangerous.” Even the official opposition- keep in mind that after Corbyn was voted leader Cameron stated “the Labour party is now a threat to our national security.”

anonymous asked:

Don't "net neutrality" laws create precident for government interference in the web? Don't we have more examples of government interference in the free exchange of ideas than companies? (Think China's "Great Firewall.")

Net neutrality rules actually set the exact opposite precedent: they promote the free exchange of information by preventing cable companies and ISPs from deciding which websites you can and cannot visit. The specific rules at issue in this debate don’t give the government any power whatsoever to limit access to content; they simply prevent ISPs from treating internet traffic unequally. Without net neutrality rules, your cable company could (and likely would) block you from accessing any website that refused to pay a toll, or it could slow down traffic from a company that offered a competing video service. Far from encouraging government interference in the web, net neutrality is at its heart an anti-censorship policy. You’re right that governments are often the worst culprits when it comes to censorship, but there are plenty of examples of private companies—particularly ISPs—limiting user speech. Because anyone you want to communicate with on the web must go through your ISP to reach you, IPSs have the power and incentive to try to profit from this gatekeeper position. Considering most people have at most one choice for broadband access, market forces won’t keep IPSs in line. Net neutrality helps keeps these activities in check, and ensures that cable companies don’t interfere with your ability to interact with whomever you want on the internet.  

Network Neutrality actually does quite the opposite of interference. It is one of the few government acts that has a 1st Amendment value underlying its premise in that it requires the Internet to remain an open platform. With the law requiring nondiscriminatory conduct by ISPs (and the ISP industry has regularly argued they act in a nondiscriminatory way), the Internet becomes the greatest of public forums in history where all ideas and expression by the individual is accessible by the world.

That being said, EFF is always very vigilant about the authorities and arguments made by government over the extent of their power to take action. We’ve had a long history of fighting the FCC in the past on things like the Broadcast Flag, and with that history under our belt we can say the 2015 Order from the FCC got most of it right. There is always some room for improvement, but it is a net positive for free expression.

It really depends on what you mean by “the web.” There’s the network, which is the pipe you get from your ISP, and there’s the applications, which is what comes through the pipe — services like YouTube and Netflix and Tumblr. Net neutrality is about making sure ISPs don’t monkey with the pipe, or the network. It doesn’t have anything specific to do with the applications, which generally rely on having equal access to that network.

More broadly, companies like Comcast and Verizon want to think they’re tech companies just like Apple and Google, but it’s pretty obvious that they’re really not — they provide a connection to the internet, but very few of the actual services you care about on the internet. They’re scared of being “dumb pipes,” which is why they’re all buying big media companies — Verizon bought AOL and Yahoo, so now it owns Tumblr, The Huffington Post, and Yahoo Fantasy Football, which is weird. AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner, which would give it HBO and CNN, among other high-end TV networks. And Comcast bought NBCUniversal, so now it owns NBC and… the Minions? You get the idea. And all of these big ISPs will happily favor their own services given the chance — Verizon already excuses its own go90 video service from its data caps, but watching YouTube will cost you. That just sucks.

But the thing about real tech companies is that people usually love them, because they’ve all been forced to be successful by serving customers well in a really competitive market where another choice is usually just right there. You hate YouTube? You can just watch Vimeo. You don’t like Amazon? You can order from Jet.com. You’re over iOS? You can buy an Android phone. And on and on.

Internet access isn’t like that — you’re pretty much stuck with what you’ve got, and it’s hard to switch. 89 percent of Americans only have two choices for broadband access; over half of Americans have just one choice. These are monopolies, and I think it’s fair to regulate them and make sure the level playing field of the internet is preserved so the real tech companies can continue competing for customers through innovation and service.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), that is, those companies that provide the “on-ramp” to the Internet, should not favor or discriminate against any applications, content and services that make up the Internet. Contrary to what companies like Comcast and AT&T say, net neutrality has nothing to do with government regulating the Internet or the web. In fact, repeal of the net neutrality rules will give the control you currently have over your Internet experience and will give it to Comcast, AT&T, Charter and Verizon.

The FCC has overseen access to US communications networks for over 80 years.  Whether it be the telephone network, cable or broadcasting, the FCC is tasked by law to protect consumers and competition when it comes access to communications networks. That legal authority gives the FCC the power to protect consumers from fraudulent billing, price gouging, privacy violations and anticompetitive behavior by ISPs. ISPs don’t want any government oversight, which is why they are seeking to repeal both the net neutrality rules and the legal authority in which the rules are grounded.

A false narrative.

Net neutrality protections are about making sure that your broadband provider does not interfere with your ability to access the internet and enjoy the content of your choosing. Net neutrality is the ‘First Amendment for the internet’: transparent rules aimed at enabling the free flow of information are what made the internet great in the first place.

In 2015, the FCC adopted several different net neutrality protections. The FCC said your broadband provider could not block or throttle content you were trying to reach, couldn’t accept payment to pick winners and losers online, and could not otherwise get in the way of the legal content you are trying to reach. It also said your broadband provider had to be transparent with you about the service it was offering.

In an ideal world, competition among ISPs would weed out the worst effects of unfair practices like site blocking and throttling. Unfortunately, we’re not in an ideal world. In most of the country, broadband ISPs have no incentive to improve their customers’ experience because there’s no competition. And these monopolies were effectively created by state and local governments: if only one ISP has permission to build and use infrastructure in your town, then competition isn’t a very useful lever for pushing that ISP to act fairly.

We can and should work on building meaningful competition among ISPs, for lots of reasons. But the clear, light-touch rules set out in the Open Internet Order set a basic floor for what all users should have the right to expect of ISPs.

The only people who think having laws that protect consumers equals government interference are those that stand to profit the most when no protections exist. But to be fair, no one wants either a government or a corporate take over of the Internet. Luckily, net neutrality prevents both. Net neutrality ensures that no single actor can prevent anyone else’s legal web traffic from flowing. Because of net neutrality, your digital content can’t be blocked, throttled, or slowed because of where you live, what you believe, or how much you pay. Net neutrality protects everyday people, small businesses and business born online that never could have existed without an open Internet. The words “government takeover” are being used to conceal the fact that the only group seeking to take over the Internet are the large incumbent Internet Service Providers who stand to make a killing if they defeat net neutrality. Hopefully, smart people like you won’t let that happen.

Liberals 5 minutes ago: We need net neutrality, the internet should be regulated by the government to keep it free and open and neutral. Some websites being slower maybe theoretically is unethical and would be the end of the internet as we know it.

Google: Hey is it cool if we delete nazi/confederate/alt-right stuff? And also hide hundreds of conservative sources from our search engine monopoly?

Youtube/Google again: Hey is okay if we demonetize all politically dissident content thus removing financial incentive for independent thought and journalism?

Twitter: Hey is it okay if we randomly unverify,suspend and delete the accounts of anyone we disagree with politically?

Facebook: It’s okay that we censor right news sources right?

Apple/Google yet again: Hey it’s cool if we delete and refuse to host conservative content with our app store oligopoly right?

Liberals: Oh of course we’re mad you didn’t do it sooner.

My last night in Shanghai and I’ve finally found a reliable VPN that I think is reasonably secure. (Incidentally, in the time I’ve been gone, the US Congress has overturned Internet Privacy Regulations approved during Obama’s waning days. Everyone should now consider investing in a good VPN to keep the ISPs from selling your online habits, curiosities and secrets.) 

I hope you’ve enjoyed the peaceful Oregon landscapes I had in the queue. These locations are now, of course, endangered due to Trump erasing environmental regulations which affect every single one of us. (His days are numbered.)

Sorry for the editorial. Anyway, ANYWAY, I’m looking forward to catching up on all the great things everyone has posted. Don’t be alarmed by the flurry of flying hearts… let the love flow.

New photos soon…

julie1974  asked:

I feel embarrassed admitting this but I don't really understand the whole net neutrality issue. Is this something that affects only United States citizens as it is a Trump thing or is it a global thing? I am not American and don't know that much about US politics apart from the major stories.

Okay, so, this is going to be a long answer because it’s something I’m really passionate about, so I’m going to try to make it as easy to read as possible and try not to ramble too much. Sorry for how long it is, but there’s a lot to cover. There is no need to feel embarrassed for not knowing. Many people here in the US aren’t aware of what’s happening! I applaud you for asking and informing yourself about something that affects a lot of people and has global ripple effects!

A Little History

Net Neutrality has been an issue for years. In some ways, it’s a story as old as the Internet being publicly available… but the big argument started about 8 years ago (I remember at the time I changed my Facebook profile picture to something trying to support Net Neutrality).

But it’s something that’s only gotten worse over time. When outright bills about it get crushed, they work bits and pieces of it into other legislation, hoping to pass it quietly.

What Net Neutrality Means for Consumers and Businesses in the US

What Net Neutrality means for those in the US is that companies will have to pay more for “fast lanes”.

Take for example: Netflix is a streaming service in the US. Comcast is an Internet Service Provider. Comcast could say “We’re going to open up our own video streaming service and you’ll need to pay an extra $10 per month, on top of your Internet costs, to use it.” Without Net Neutrality, Comcast can make their service extra fast and can make Netflix run incredibly slow… AND they can tell Netflix “pay us a lot of money, and we’ll make it faster.” Netflix may have to pass this cost onto customers, meaning we end up having to pay more for Netflix, OR pay Comcast for streaming.

But what does it mean for small business? Here’s an example for me:

If I wanted people to continue accessing my website, I would have to pay a fee to Internet Service Providers for my website to stay “fast.” If I didn’t, they could slow it down so my site is nearly unusable, where others who are willing to pay the money get a “fast lane.” It crushes small business, means that Internet Service Providers get a lot more money, and in turn, the congress people lobbying for this are getting even MORE money.

It would mean that the cable and phone companies get control of the Internet, and would mean they can make it impossible for websites to function, like Youtube or Mythical.Store, without them paying MASSIVE fees for a fast lane. For little website owners like me, it means that essentially, we’d be crushed entirely.

Why Net Neutrality is a Trump Thing

Net Neutrality isn’t originally a Trump thing, but it IS a Trump issue now, and here’s why:

Net Neutrality started years ago before Trump was in office. However, in 2015, the things that were standing in the way of Net Neutrality were DEFEATED with a bill, meaning the Internet could stay free and open. People on ALL sides of the political spectrum saw this as a huge success– they wanted Open Internet. This is a thing for ALL people, not one part of the political spectrum or another.

The REASON it is a Trump Issue now is because Trump selected a chairman for the FCC (Federal Communications Commission, a government agency that regulates Internet, Television, Radio, Wire, Sattelite, etc). The chairman’s name is Ajit Pai, and he is saying he wants to take a “weed whacker” to net neutrality rules (or essentially, demolish the crud out of them).

How This Impacts Those Outside of the US

Net Neutrality doesn’t hit those outside of the US as hard as those in the US, but it DOES have an impact and here’s how: US-based creators who are having to pay more to access fast lanes may end up disappearing entirely, which means some of your favorite creators might not be able to create anymore and will shut down. Those who DO keep creating will be paying huge fees to continue creating, meaning your costs to access their services (subscription fees, merch costs, etc) may increase. And it could cause global ripple effects to countries who see this form of business being a success and decide to repeat it in their own country by making Internet Fast Lanes the standard practice in countries worldwide.

How those in the US can Help Fight for Net Neutrality

Americans can fight in a few ways. We can contact our state representatives and tell them that we are NOT okay with Internet Fastlanes and encourage them to support and represent us by voting AGAINST the bills that threaten to stop it. We can sign petitions and donate to make sure that they are representing us in Washington and helping our voices be heard to STOP the fight against Net Neutrality.

How those outside of the US can Help Fight for Net Neutrality

Those outside the US can help by donating to causes like SaveTheInternet and by sharing on social media so their friends in the US know how to take action, and why it’s important– so if you have a Twitter or Facebook, or here on Tumblr, sharing and reblogging can really help encourage them to make their voices heard.

anonymous asked:

Are you planning on voting tomorrow? I'm so nervous about the outcome but then again I can't help but having apathy towards politics. It's a complete mess

YES of course! Honestly, if you’re in the UK and you have registered to vote you need to make sure you get your ass out to that polling station come rain or shine! It makes me so sad to see turnout rates for 18-24 year olds so low every election like I totally get that you might not trust politicians or might not think they offer you anything but SERIOUSLY THE YOUTH HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION SO PLEASE USE IT!

Younger voters are generally so much more in tune with social justice and yet they’re so often ignored because politicians know they (generally) don’t vote and this is why you might think they offer you nothing - but if you turn out to vote they will listen to you!

PLEASE VOTE!!!

And, really, I don’t wanna tell you which way to vote - but consider this:

  • Conservative government has overseen radical cuts to our public services and we are seeing the outcome of this in our everyday lives - our NHS is crippled, our police force has dwindled to dangerous numbers, and our education system is under such strain that if this continues there will be nobody left to teach our future generations (remember that favourite teacher of yours from school? the one who was so enthusiastic and passionate about their job? these are the teachers now giving up because it is TOO MUCH)
  • Theresa May and her Conservative manifesto contains concerning policies, such as suggestions about regulating the internet and the media. It’s also suggested she wants to repeal the Human Rights Act.. THE FUCKING HUMAN RIGHTS ACT!!! 
  • The only party who stands a real chance of beating the Conservatives is Labour, and because of our shitty electoral system you need to vote tactically. I would love to vote Green, but that is worthless in my constituency. Visit this site - https://www.tactical2017.com/ - which tells you which is the best party to vote for in order to make the most of your vote
  • Whatever you think of Corbyn, he is not looking to strip you of your personal rights and freedoms. WEIGH IT UP.
  • The Conservatives want you to believe that Labour cannot afford all of their public spending. They want you to believe that you can benefit from their policies, when their policies are tailored to best support those in the top 1%. Believing this ‘trickles down’ is bullshit when you realise that wages of the top 1% have risen exponentially in the last 30 years, whereas the wage of the average worker has plateaued. Don’t fall for it.
  • Labour want to invest in our NHS. They want to invest in Education. They want to invest in public services. The payoff? Make those with more money than they need to pay their way.

Sorry, that turned in to a rant.

tl;dr: Yes I’ll be voting. Everyone else should do too. The only way to change things is to speak up. Vote for who you want, but consider what voting Blue actually means for the country. I’ll be voting Labour.

Remember SOPA? The stop online piracy act. Remember how they tried to regulate the internet and how everyone freaked out and protested to keep the internet free and open. 

Just a few years later and here we are with people demanding the internet stay regulated. What a difference a little spin, some time and some corporate fear mongering can make. If you believe net neutrality was about protecting online freedom I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

independent.co.uk
Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack
New international agreements should be introduced to regulate the internet in the light of the London Bridge terror attack, Theresa May has said. The Prime Minister said introducing new rules for cyberspace would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and that technology firms were not currently doing enough. The Prime Minister made the comments outside Downing Street on Sunday morning in the aftermath of the van and knife attack that saw seven people killed and dozens injured.

As much as I hate terrorism, I really don’t like the direction this is going in…

I think the reason so many are confused about net neutrality is simply the name. They called it net neutrality but they mean…let us regulate the internet. So in order to support net neutrality…you have to oppose net neutrality. Combine that with the baseless fear mongering and boom reactionary ignorant support. The internet has stayed the free open resource it is for decades without the government. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it.

thanks to the people who chose to ignore my posts about venezuela, opposition leaders were taken from their homes to prison where they’ll most likely be executed. people don’t understand what could happen, what is LIKELY to happen if we just forget about it all:

- VENEZUELA WILL BE FULLY COMMUNIST. A complete dictatorship.

- Freedom of speech is not supported, you speak badly of the government you’re destined to prison and will likely face the death penalty.

- Internet access will be regulated or completely shut off, people will not be able to see what the government does not want them to see.

- Food will be regulated, government will send you what you and your family could eat.

- No democracy, government can take away your home or business, they can place another family in your home to live together.

i hate seeing “pray for venezuela”, sure we can pray and hope god does a miracle, but forgetting about this is the WORST thing we can do. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO SPREAD THE WORD i haven’t seen much media coverage of anything involving venezuela, they’re all too busy covering the departure of white house personnel.

A small post debunking some lies going around about Venezuela

 Even though I said I wouldn’t I’m putting this here mostly as a reference to use when poeple who honestly want to know bring out the point I’m going to address here. As I said before I’m not really interested in this getting around widely because I already know what Im gonna be told, “you only say that because you support the goverment”, “your sources are biased” “it’s all dicatorship propaganda” blah blah. It’s like a game where the first person who yells “fraud!” wins.

I support the goverment and I don’t particularly hide it (except from my neighbours because I live in a opposition-supported protest zone and it could endanger my own life and my family’s. More on that later). I’m also aware that the goverment supported media is biased toward it but I’m not as naive to think, today in the year 2017, that unbiased media exists. We all have bias depending on our points of view, which are based on the values we choose for ourselves. The media isn’t my only source of information, I also try to analyze political issues according to what I know, to my knowledge of history and world issues and my personal ideology. I have my own criteria and I hope everyone reading has their own too.

That said, what I’m going to say now is based exactly on that: first and foremost my own criteria to understand reality, second, things I have personal experience with, third, the news sources I trust, and last, my political opinion. Feel free to argue against anything I say, as I always try to have a good reason to do so in the first place.

Here it goes, in bullet points according to each lie I’ve seen around:

  • “The goverment will control national and international media” this lie has been going on probably since 1998 when the coalition that holds the goverment won their first election. It’s a lie that has been widely repeated on national and international media. For years. On the media. Nationally and internationally. 19 years hearing this constantly (on the media) and I’m still waiting for it to become true. It won’t. Because it’s a cheap lie.
  • “Internet access will be regulated or forbidden” Yeah right I’m sure that’s the reason behind the current goverment launching two satellites (something Venezuela never had previously) and spreading internet access through every corner of the country, plus creating free-access public internet centers, and the reason behind planning yet another satellite and a better platform for mobile internet access. All of that just to forbid it all of sudden. Yet another empty lie.
  • “The president will stay in control until he dies. No votes. No democracy” Yeah right I’m sure that’s the reason the current goverment has held 21 elections in 18 years. 21 free, direct, secret-vote elections. It’s because we hate democracy. Wait! Not so free! Because yesterday me and my family, and hundreds of people who live in opposition-backed areas had to HIDE the fact that they were voting (political stances in Venezuela can be more or less determined by social class so it’s common to find communities that mostly share the same political opinion). Sorry, but in 18 years the only ones who have ever said that we shouldn’t vote because it’s somehow “anti-democratic” has been the opposition. Of course you’re all free to not participate if you will but under what kind of logic is it democratic to threaten or try to prevent anyone else from participating? And don’t come at me saying it’s lies, I had to go through barricades and pretend I was just trying to take a bus while kids with face-hiding scarves watched every step I took so I could go voting. And I had it easier than many.
  • “The goverment will seize control of private property” another lie that has been going around since 1998 with literally nothing to back it. 19 years. Still waiting.
  • “They can force you out of your own home or make you share it with another family they choose” this lie traditionally had another variation of specifying it was a CUBAN family they were gonna get into your home, to give it an extra side dish of xenophobia. As I said, I’m still waiting for it to become true. It won’t because it’s a cheap empty propagandistic lie.
  • “They can take money out of your bank account and block your international account. No debit or credit cards allowed” The only reason the goverment would have to do anything with your bank accounts is that you committed some kind of crime, and the specifications of that measure are in the law. If there had been cases of people having some kind of problem with this being abused they would have perfect legal means to fight back. They haven’t, because every time a bank account has been intervened it has been due to a very legal reason. And how can you say debit and credit won’t be allowed when state owned banks have created many plans and measures to finance working class people? (ie there’s a debit card plan specifically for young, unemployed people helping them access to credit plans and all that) Also doesn’t the opposition say the goverment is giving away money and chavists are mostly lazy people who don’t work? Which one is it in the end? Another case of manipulation…
  • “If you speak ill of the goverment you can face prison charges or death penalty” First of all death penalty doesn’t even exist in Venezuela and it won’t in the future, as most venezuelan society doesn’t find it acceptable. We don’t even have life sentence, the worst crimes are punished with a 30 year sentence. Second. This is another lie I have heard for 19 years. In the media. Through live TV. Through the radio. Constantly. Alongside a long string of insults against the President, his wife, his mother, his supporters, etc etc. Yet another lie to finish one long list of pure lies.
  • That one lie about the ID card being counted as a vote. First, what the heck is this ID card called “carnet de la patria”? Basically it’s a new database of people who have ever used or need to use what the goverment calls “social missions” (misiones sociales), a big array of social, political and economic plans and their respective logistics created to attend specific needs in vulnerable sectors of society. However, since these “missions” have become the goverment’s first go-to option to attend issues directly, this new database has been created to keep a better record of who needs what. It’s optional, it’s free, and it has zero to do with the electoral system. The only reason people were signing up in lists with their new ID numbers yesterday at voting centers is because the *PARTY* (the PSUV, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) wanted to keep track of whose of their MEMBERS voted. This was also free and no one was obliged to sign up these lists if they didn’t want to. Since one of the most important PSUV activities is fostering electoral participation among its militancy, this list had practical ends. They naturally didn’t ask who you voted for, they only want to know if you went to vote. 

There’s another claim about electoral fraud that I’m gonna address in another post because it deserves a more detailed explanation of how our electoral system works.

As I said I’m not particularly interested in this getting around because most people will just blindly reblog anything that feels comfortable enough to accept. This is here mostly as back-up for the personal, one on one conversations I’ve had through chat with people who honestly want to know more, in a situation where specific questions can be faced with specific answers. You can reblog this if you want but as always I recommend coming up with your own opinion and forming your judgement through information and intelligent reflection. If I can somehow help with anything my inbox and chat are open so don’t hesitate to ask ~

So after being endlessly annoyed by the information-less pro FCC campaign/propaganda deployed on Tumblr, I wanted to find out who exactly is behind this sponsored account “everybodyontheinternet”.  

If you click any of those gifsets that cross your dash 20 or so times a day you get sent to a bare bones tumblr account that allows you to contact elected officials to “help the FCC save the internet”, though we never have it comprehensively explained what we’re saving it from.  

Apparently my cable company is going to magically own the interwebs if the FCC does not regulate the internet as a title II telecom utility.  I get the sense that if the vote somehow fails it will be like Cinderella’s ride turning into a pumpkin, we’re at a fever pitch do-or-die level of bullshit. 

If you scroll down to the bottom of the “everybody” page there are a couple of external links to informational (propaganda) sources on why this effort is so important.  One of the outside sources linked counts Tumblr as a founding member (see the article in The Hill) and is a corporate lobbyist entity headed by a former republican congressman and a bunch of former congressional staffers.

The other is a Soros backed dark money group, “free press” who ironically won’t disclose their donor list.

If this info is widely known, it hadn’t been made apparent to me.  I think it would behoove Tumblr to disclose their likely involvement in the sponsored effort if they have not.  

I would like to know why they think it is appropriate that these regulations be adopted without the public being able to review them in advance.

Since 9/11 we have fallen prey to a type of governance that rushes through sweeping regulation and legislation “for our own good”.  Partisans on both sides of the isle defend the practice whether it be related to national security, healthcare or this latest bout with the semi-autonomous FCC.

I also keep seeing this notion that ISP’s are opposed to Title II regulation and yet there is zero public effort at resistance from them that I’ve seen.  Practically all of the propaganda that I’ve come across has been pro government and almost all of it has been nonsensical, hysterical and threatening while being devoid of substance.

I swear to god Net Neutrality is one of the dumbest “issues” out there.

It’s literally just a government power grab disguised as an attempt to stop “evil coporations” from throttling your internet speeds to certain websites, which they already can’t legally do because of anti-trust laws.

Internet service providers have virtually never practiced throttling of internet speeds to certain websites in the US. Not only because it’s illegal, but because it’s just bad business. The one case proponents of Net Neutrality have in their favor is of Comcast slowing the speed of Netflix streaming specifically because Netflix was consuming a disproportionate amount of bandwidth in relation to other services. It resulted in a lawsuit that Comcast lost, because of anti-trust laws.

Net Neutrality rules are pointless for protecting an open internet. What Net Neutrality actually does is put the power to regulate the internet in the hands of the government. You know what that looks like? It looks like China banning certain websites. It looks like Germany and the UK prosecuting people for posting “hate speech” online.

An open letter to Tumblr about Net Neutrality

To Whom it May Concern (which is basically everybody),

As a regular Tumblr user, I was disappointed to see Tumblr’s open support of so-called “Net Neutrality.” I find it terribly ironic that a company which is able to exist solely because of the current state of internet freedom, supports regulation that would essentially hand over internet liberty to the federal government. “Save the Internet”? From what, exactly? Conditions that allowed your company to flourish? How…unselfish of you.

In the spirit of liberty, I celebrate everyone’s right to openly express any opinion, regardless of how much I might disagree with it. That being said, I’d like to exercise my right to free speech by pointing out that your support of “Net Neutrality” is either misguided or intentionally misleading. 

1.  Net Neutrality is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Supporters of so-called “Net Neutrality” will tell you that the government needs to have the power to regulate how ISPs prioritize their connection speeds to ensure that they don’t favor one internet user over another. But here’s what they never tell you: It’s a fictitious problem. It only exists theoretically. This, of course, is nothing new. The government is famous for concocting problems that it can only “solve” by assuming more control. Understand, I’m not suggesting that ISPs don’t prioritize connection speeds. They do. But often this is a good thing, not a bad thing. An internet company should be able to prioritize, say, Netflix over CrazyAndSillyCats.com. It only makes sense.

But here’s the rub: it is natural for the free to self-adjust, but history has shown that it is decidedly unnatural for the Federal Government to do so.  If CrazyAndSillyCats.com suddenly becomes an international success, and consumers suddenly demand faster access, they get to vote with their pocketbooks and only the service providers who adjust will succeed. Ten years ago, nobody could have imagined the success that a company like Netflix would have streaming HD movies on demand.  At first, the service was clunky and slow, but now that consumers have demanded the content, ISPs have adjusted and Netflix movies and shows can be streamed without interruption.  The Federal Government is not capable of that kind of rapid adjustment.

2.  Net Neutrality will ultimately lead to censorship.

The only developed countries in the world that do not a have free and open internet are countries where the government will simply not allow it to be free. The internet is censored in China. The internet is censored in Cuba. The internet is censored all over the Middle East. This is something that we in America have never had to fear because the government lacked the legal authority to censor, but by deeming the internet a “public utility,” that’s exactly what would happen. Why would we want to voluntarily give the power to censor to government?

Right now, internet content is free and open and controlled by no one (generally speaking). People can exchange information freely precisely because of the fact that the government doesn’t control it. Users aren’t required to have licenses to post things deemed controversial by those in power. I know, I know…you might think that it’s far fetched to suggest that the federal government would suddenly start blocking certain users from saying certain things online. That’s tinfoil hat stuff. but the truth is, it’s already happening. The FCC censors what can and can’t be said or shown on over-the-air television, radio and satellite mediums because these have been deemed “public utilities.” Why are we so confident that this won’t happen to the internet – with this administration or when a new one comes to power?

Furthermore, in the past, this hasn’t just applied to obscene content, it has applied to political speech as well:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced.

In other words, every political view shared by every broadcaster had to be monitored and approved by government. This isn’t liberty. On the contrary. Fortunately this terrible law that censored broadcasters has been repealed. Look, if you think the government won’t attempt to regulate political speech (or punish certain behavior or try to control certain behavior) on the internet by fines, selective licensing, or other coercive measures, you’re being short-sighted and utterly naive.

3.  Net Neutrality will usher in internet taxes.

There are some that claim that this isn’t true because taxes aren’t mandated in the FCC regulations, but read the fine print. By changing the classification of the internet, the federal government opens up the possibility of state and local utility taxes, which is, of course, another way of saying that local and state governments will tax the internet (because that’s what governments do. If they can tax it, they will). Here’s one analysis from the Progressive Policy Institute:

By regulating broadband service under Title II…broadband would likely become burdened with a host of new state and local taxes and fees, the kind we pay on our monthly home and/or wireless phone bills. These taxes and fees are normally passed on to consumers; when they rise, consumers end up paying more. Expect the same with broadband.
According to Litan and Singer, these new state and local fees will increase by $15 billion, impacting consumers to varying degrees. The average American household with a fixed broadband connection would pay in the range of an additional $51 to $83 per year, and those with one smartphone or other wireless broadband device (tablet) would pay $72 more annually.

But local taxes aren’t the only ones that will show up on the average consumer’s bill. The FCC has long required fees of all of the entities it regulates in order to support its so-called “Universal Service Fund.” Allow Wikipedia to explain:

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intended to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fund reported a total of $8.33 billion in disbursements in 2013, divided among its four programs. The fund is supported by charging telecommunications companies a fee which is set quarterly. As of the fourth quarter of 2014, the rate is 16.1% of a telecom company’s interstate end-user revenues.

So they won’t tax you, per se. They’ll just charge you fees. Sound familiar?  That’s exactly what happened with Obamacare. They might not call it a “tax,” but make no mistake, getting several billion dollars into Uncle Sam’s pockets is one of the primary reasons for Net Neutrality, not fairness (however that’s defined). New taxes will come if the FCC’s plan comes to fruition. It’s not a question of if, but a question of when.

4. There is no reasonable argument for Net Neutrality.

I’ve seen memes. I’ve seen Facebook posts. I’ve read progressive articles. I’ve listened to progressive politicians. And when it comes to Net Neutrality, they all have the same argument: “We need to #SaveTheInternet from the evil cable companies.” It’s the same tactic that has been used to push through countless other liberty-killing bureaucracies, laws, taxes and regulations: a fear and hatred of corporations. But this is an argument based on emotion and personal bias rather than reason, history, principle or fact.

First of all, as has already been stated, there is no problem. Internet users in America have the ability to blog about whatever they’d like, watch Netflix almost immediately – even on their phones, listen to religious broadcasts, participate in things that some might find offensive, share controversial ideas, criticize government and, yes, even rail against evil corporations. No one is censored. No one is threatened (legally). No one has their rights violated. There is no problem. The government shouldn’t be going around solving problems that don’t exist.

Second, as anyone who is vaguely familiar with economics would surmise, even if a cable company did begin to throttle particular users and allocate resources for reasons other than traffic demand, they would begin losing customers to competitors and the problem would be immediately fixed. That’s how the free market works. It can adjust to market forces and demand instantaneously. The government? Not so much.

Third, not only is there no problem, but the competition in the free marketplace has been an undeniable success. In 1994, there were dial-up modems that supplied internet at a laughable (by today’s standards) 28.8 kbit/s. Now, gigabit connections are available in many communities nationwide. That means that our internet is 35,000 times faster now than it was just two decades ago. No government agency made that happen. The free market did.

Fourth, you may not like them, but corporations do not have the power that government does. Corporations can’t put you in jail. Corporations can’t coerce you. Corporations can’t tax you. Corporations can’t pass regulations that infringe upon your rights in any way. Government, however, can do all of these things. It has the monopoly on force.  If you think dealing with Comcast or ATT is bad, you should be petrified of dealing with the Federal Government.

5. Net Neutrality will create yet another way for corporations to get in bed with politicians.

Everyone claims to hate crony-capitalism, but when we have a real chance to curb corporate influence on government, we rarely take it. In fact, often laws, taxes, regulations and spending projects are initiated, not because they are needed, but because a corporation with powerful lobbyists pays off, bribes, or blackmails politicians to get them passed because they know it will benefit them in some way. And giving the government the power to grant (or not grant) internet licenses will likely cause this problem to increase exponentially.

You might slyly ask why many large ISP companies would be in favor of such a law if it truly will regulate them, raise taxes, take away liberty, usher in unprecedented amounts of red tape and raise the price of virtually everything related to the internet. The answer: The elimination of competition. Why is Amazon in favor of the proposed internet tax that they’ll have to pay? Is it because Amazon is so noble that it is just chomping at the bit to build more roads and bridges? Hardly. It’s because Amazon knows that its smaller competition couldn’t possibly afford to compete with its deep pockets and they would eventually go out of business. It’s not all cupcakes and rainbows when the government and corporations mix. I regularly hear people of all political stripes decry the cozy relationship that corporations have with politicians, and rightly so. So why would we want to encourage it?

6. Net Neutrality takes away liberty.

You may hate corporations. More specifically, you may hate cable companies and ISPs. That’s super. Good for you. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t (or shouldn’t) have the right to run their businesses as they see fit. Please understand, if they violate the Constitutional rights of someone, then they should face consequences. No question about it. But apart from that, they, like everyone else, should be allowed to conduct business without the thumb of government on them.

The vast majority of the time, people enter into contracts with ISPs for their internet service. These contracts generally outline the pricing structure, define the terms of service and often lock a user in for a limited time. But notice, the ISPs don’t come to anyone’s house, hold a gun to their head and force them to sign anything. These people enter into binding contracts of their own free will. And, a person who enters into a binding contract is obligated to abide by the terms of that contract, plain and simple. If they don’t have to abide by them, then what’s the point of the contract? And if the two entities agree that an ISP has the right to allocate bandwidth, then the ISP has the right to allocate bandwidth. No need for government intervention.

There are some who would argue that as long as communication companies receive special privileges, tax breaks and, in some cases, subsidies from the government, they need to be regulated. I could not agree more. This is why we need to eliminate these special considerations for all companies, regardless of the type of business they conduct. Just as all people should have exactly the same rights, companies should be treated exactly the same by all governing bodies.

Furthermore, I personally want my ISP to be able to be able to allocate bandwidth as it sees fit. I would expect that a large telecommunications company would know the most efficient way to serve its customers, including me. Think about it, supporters of these regulations are demanding that it be illegal for me to enter into a private contract with a company that might prioritize bandwidth. Even if I want to. Again, this isn’t liberty. It should never be illegal for two consenting entities to enter into contracts with one another. But it seems that it has become impossible for most people to separate the things they don’t like from the things that they believe should be illegal.

7.   Net Neutrality is nothing but a usurpation of power.

For some reason, there is a belief among millions of Americans that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, the federal government generally has the best interest of the American people at heart. I’m not sure how this belief system got started, but it is astounding how prevalent it is. But at best, the government is made up of imperfect people who want to get reelected. At worst (which is unfortunately the most common state) it is made of up of power-hungry bureaucrats hell-bent on gaining control of every aspect of our lives. Liberty (or even pragmatism) is rarely, if ever, the goal. Power is. And they’ll bribe, lie, get in bed with corporations, backstab and blackmail to get it. Whatever gets the job done.

Again, I ask you not to be naive. It kills the statists in Washington that the government doesn’t control our internet communication. After all, one of the planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is to centralize the means of communication in the hands of the state. That’s precisely what this is. No, I’m not suggesting that supporters of this law sleep with copies of Communist Manifesto under their pillows at night, but this belief that the government is good and that the private sector is bad is instinctual to statists. It’s something they all have in common, by definition. Perhaps every American politician until the end of time will be noble and honorable and Net Neutrality will never be used in a sinister way at all. But maybe it will. Why would we risk it?

8.  Net Neutrality should be abhorrent to Liberals and Conservatives (and everyone else too!)

Up to this point, most of the vocal opposition to Net Neutrality has come from conservatives and libertarians. However, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when anyone who called themselves a “liberal” would be automatically and unequivocally opposed to any proposal that might give government the power to regulate speech or any other form of communication. Those days are gone. Liberals, those who once supported liberty in all forms, especially in regards to speech, are now eager to grant virtually unlimited regulatory power to a small panel of unelected bureaucrats, all under the guise of keeping the internet “neutral” – a term that seems more closely to resemble the Newspeak of George Orwell’s 1984 than something heard in The United States of America.

Tumblr, I implore you to reexamine your views on Net Neutrality. Or, at least admit that there might be a few reasonable arguments against it. You have thousands and thousands of users with political views all over the map. Please don’t continue to alienate those with whom you disagree by publicly taking sides on such a controversial issue.

anonymous asked:

Hey your blog sounds amazing... Can I ask for yandere 2p axis headcanons?

(Thank you, and sure~ I assume you mean’t how they’d act..? If that isn’t what you were asking for then I’d be happy to do it again!)

Yandere Axis

2P!Italy: Luciano would be greedy and paranoid CONSTANTLY towards his s/o. He would call them at least 7 times every hour and if they didn’t pick up, he would panic and spam them. He would also think that his s/o was cheating on him, and every time he saw them with another guy/girl then he would get up in their face and fight them. Luciano would be possessive over his baby and would be willing to kill them so no one else can have their love.

2P!Germany: Lutz would definitely be overprotective. He would watch his s/o like a hawk and never leave them alone. Going out? He’ll need the time, the place, the people, the event, your escort’s numbers, the reason and constant check-ups. Hell, he’ll even go himself ‘just in case’. Any side glance or too long of a stare will end up with a broken nose and busted lip - that’s the least he will do. Lutz would be obsessive over his s/o and be willing to kill anyone/anything that got in the way of their love.

2P!Japan: Kuro would be very clear about the matter. His s/o was his and no one else’s. He would constantly tell them every day that they belong to him and if anyone else tried anything, he’d tear them to shreds. He’d even go so far as to threaten his lover so that no one would try and get between them. He would have complete and utter control over them; set curfews, phone and internet regulations, and a report on where his s/o would be going and what they were doing. Kuro would be possessively-obsessive over his s/o and would be willing to kill anyone/anything in the path of their undying love. Maybe even them.

i see a lot of radfems saying that being transgender is a delusion when… it isn’t. it is a disorder, not a delusion. if transgender people literally thought we physically had the body of the opposite sex, we would not experience dysphoria. dysphoria occurs because for many transgender people, the brain map which they use to conceptualize their body does not match their sex. most transgender people are aware that they are male or female when it comes to their biology. however, they may believe that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE for them to conceive of themself as male or female, due to the language which surrounds transactivism, creating a shibboleth which can lead to accusations if one does not follow the preconceived code- this code is mostly regulated to internet realms (such as tumblr) which can leak into everyday life.