[OOC] Myriad Reality

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Eh
Eh
Ew
Fake old news—besides, it doesn't matter at this point, considering they already drafted the deal and it's really good. We talked about it.

@Dynamics

Except it was true, your argument was the same as the fuckwit's, and nobody is actually going to go after ISPs if they're under the FTC.

[Dynamics]

<Snipped quote by Dynamics>

Except it was true, your argument was the same as the fuckwit's, and nobody is actually going to go after ISPs if they're under the FTC.

@DarkwolfX37

I don't listen to the guy—I literally have the same argument as the networking/infosec community, i.e. the people without whom the internet wouldn't function at all. You don't actually believe the FCC is on your side. There's absolutely no way.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

I don't listen to the guy—I literally have the same argument as the networking/infosec community, i.e. the people without whom the internet wouldn't function at all. You don't actually believe the FCC is on your side. There's absolutely no way.

@Dynamics

Of course the FCC isn't on our side, but the "oh there were no problems before this so there'll be none if we get rid of it" is bullshit, it's PROVEN that it works, there are tons of cases where ISPs were doing bullshit that they weren't able to once it passed. Plus, if nothing else, keeping it there increases the chances of new ISPs rising up to challenge the monopolies that currently exist.

[Dynamics]

<Snipped quote by Dynamics>

Of course the FCC isn't on our side, but the "oh there were no problems before this so there'll be none if we get rid of it" is bullshit, it's PROVEN that it works, there are tons of cases where ISPs were doing bullshit that they weren't able to once it passed. Plus, if nothing else, keeping it there increases the chances of new ISPs rising up to challenge the monopolies that currently exist.

@DarkwolfX37

Except it's not. Have you not seen the ISP conglomeration bonanza the past several years Title II has been in effect? AT&T is attempting to merge with Time Warner, of all companies, and the FCC doesn't care. All they care about is spying on American citizens and with them in charge, they won't attack ISPs. You only end up getting destroyed by both ends because this deal allows the government to enter and throw in their own special spice of regulation. The ISP monopoly problem was created by the government, and you don't fix a problem caused by governmental influence with more governmental influence. The FTC is more limited when it comes to hurting consumers through government means and they have a much better track record for actually stopping big business from going out of control. And, if you read the repeal terms, you'll find the following:

"Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per se illegal under the antitrust laws.518"

This quote prevents ISPs from doing exactly what you're expressing concern over. If they attempt to discriminate against data and block it/slow it down based on the content type, the FTC will invoke the restrictions outlined in the Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Except it's not. Have you not seen the ISP conglomeration bonanza the past several years Title II has been in effect? AT&T is attempting to merge with Time Warner, of all companies, and the FCC doesn't care. All they care about is spying on American citizens and with them in charge, they won't attack ISPs. You only end up getting destroyed by both ends because this deal allows the government to enter and throw in their own special spice of regulation. The ISP monopoly problem was created by the government, and you don't fix a problem caused by governmental influence with more governmental influence. The FTC is more limited when it comes to hurting consumers through government means and they have a much better track record for actually stopping big business from going out of control. And, if you read the repeal terms, you'll find the following:

"Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per se illegal under the antitrust laws.518"

This quote prevents ISPs from doing exactly what you're expressing concern over. If they attempt to discriminate against data and block it/slow it down based on the content type, the FTC will invoke the restrictions outlined in the Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85.

@Dynamics

The ONLY cure for bad government influence is better government influence. There's a reason that governments are a thing. Regulating horrible people is exclusively the job of a government.
Except that's not true. If you read that from the perspective of a lawyer, you'd notice that it doesn't block those thing. The way that's going to be immediately attacked is "They can block it so long as it isn't anti competitive." It's not going to stop anything. Not only that, but companies were already banned from anti-competitive arrangements and they just set up maps of where one company could work and the others wouldn't compete there. This isn't good enough to take away the current protections for.

[Dynamics]

<Snipped quote by Dynamics>

The ONLY cure for bad government influence is better government influence. There's a reason that governments are a thing. Regulating horrible people is exclusively the job of a government.
Except that's not true. If you read that from the perspective of a lawyer, you'd notice that it doesn't block those thing. The way that's going to be immediately attacked is "They can block it so long as it isn't anti competitive." It's not going to stop anything. Not only that, but companies were already banned from anti-competitive arrangements and they just set up maps of where one company could work and the others wouldn't compete there. This isn't good enough to take away the current protections for.

@DarkwolfX37

It's really not. I figured that you of all people would agree that whenever the government gets involved, it makes things worse. We need to roll back the governmental regulations to the point that there can be actual competition, and between the FCC and the FTC, only one of those is a trust-buster.
Literally all net nueturality regulations in place can be argued the same way because it's an inherently non-linear kind of system. Unless the law is specifically written by network engineers with very precise goals in mind, there will always be a way to slip through the cracks. That's why that provision wasn't written broad enough for the ISPs to slip through; rather, it was written broad enough for the FTC to actually do their job. Laws aren't contracts—in courts, laws are upheld by the spirit rather than the letter; this is the government actually doing something they can anti-trust companies for because the subjectivity allows the FTC to stop these things. Also, note that Pai is the chairman of the FCC. He's giving up the influence he has over the internet to another organization he has no control over.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

It's really not. I figured that you of all people would agree that whenever the government gets involved, it makes things worse. We need to roll back the governmental regulations to the point that there can be actual competition, and between the FCC and the FTC, only one of those is a trust-buster.
Literally all net nueturality regulations in place can be argued the same way because it's an inherently non-linear kind of system. Unless the law is specifically written by network engineers with very precise goals in mind, there will always be a way to slip through the cracks. That's why that provision wasn't written broad enough for the ISPs to slip through; rather, it was written broad enough for the FTC to actually do their job. Laws aren't contracts—in courts, laws are upheld by the spirit rather than the letter; this is the government actually doing something they can anti-trust companies for because the subjectivity allows the FTC to stop these things. Also, note that Pai is the chairman of the FCC. He's giving up the influence he has over the internet to another organization he has no control over.

@Dynamics

If you're going to have a government then do it right. And there are countless cases in history of the government doing single things well enough. It's not an "the government is always wrong" it's "the government is often wrong." You wouldn't be arguing against the laws preventing manual child labor in factories, and if the government came out with something actually stopping the bullshit monopolies by taking extra control over ISPs then you wouldn't be saying "oh that's automatically bad because it's the government." You're just using the government as a boogyman because it happens to align with your position this one time. Doing that often enough puts this incorrect idea that the government can't do any good into someone. This is your monthly anarchist reminder that governments exist to limit human flaws by banding together with enough threat of force that the people can't compete thereby forcing them to limit their shitty selves. You have to limit markets or there won't be a market, the only workable capitalism is regulated capitalism. The only question is whether the regulation is extensive or not, and the regulations on ISPs aren't good enough.
And Trump gave half his responsibilities to his kids, what's your point? Rather than fixing what he's in charge of to do better, he's trying to get rid of something that worked and shovel off responsibility to another group. Are you really trying to say that the FTC has less work than the FCC to the point that it's a good idea to shift the work? Because that's not the case.

[Dynamics]

<Snipped quote by Dynamics>

If you're going to have a government then do it right. And there are countless cases in history of the government doing single things well enough. It's not an "the government is always wrong" it's "the government is often wrong." You wouldn't be arguing against the laws preventing manual child labor in factories, and if the government came out with something actually stopping the bullshit monopolies by taking extra control over ISPs then you wouldn't be saying "oh that's automatically bad because it's the government." You're just using the government as a boogyman because it happens to align with your position this one time. Doing that often enough puts this incorrect idea that the government can't do any good into someone. This is your monthly anarchist reminder that governments exist to limit human flaws by banding together with enough threat of force that the people can't compete thereby forcing them to limit their shitty selves. You have to limit markets or there won't be a market, the only workable capitalism is regulated capitalism. The only question is whether the regulation is extensive or not, and the regulations on ISPs aren't good enough.
And Trump gave half his responsibilities to his kids, what's your point? Rather than fixing what he's in charge of to do better, he's trying to get rid of something that worked and shovel off responsibility to another group. Are you really trying to say that the FTC has less work than the FCC to the point that it's a good idea to shift the work? Because that's not the case.

@DarkwolfX37

You don't have to have the government—that's why this is a problem. The government exists to protect citizens from threats and promote a better lifestyle for the nation as a whole, and it's been proven time and time again that they do not do their jobs properly when it comes to the free market. Want to argue that they're great with safety regulations? Sure, why not (even though they do a poor job at that too). Want to argue that they do fine with keeping us safe from hostile invaders? Sure, I'll even agree with you there. But Title II makes the internet a government-controlled commodity, and there is no instance of a net gain from the government ever taking over any part of the free market. Even making a standard baseline of needs is fine for a government, but Title II grants them all but full control. I figured you'd care about personal privacy considering what the government has literally already done to violate the privacy of its citizens with NSA spying, and this would just open the hole wider for the FCC to step in and do the same. It's not setting up the government as a personal boogeyman—it's knowing what they do and do not do well (which happens to be a lot in this day and age). Controlling a market is one of those things the government does very, very poorly.

But it didn't work. Rates already have gone through the roof and competition continues to die. The only thing the government is good for in this instance is trust-busting; they failed when it came to keeping up standards and they failed when it came to protecting consumers. I'm not saying the FTC has less work, but I am saying that the FTC does a better job.

[Ignacious]

David!! Snoww!! We had snow!!

[Dynamics]

David!! Snoww!! We had snow!!

@Ignacious

You had snow...

[Stratocracy]

Finished a stressful exam. Attendance/presence or whatever back to normal when I wake up tomorrow.

[Ignacious]

<Snipped quote by Ignacious>

You had snow...

@Dynamics

Wat???

[Etcetera]

Finished a stressful exam. Attendance/presence or whatever back to normal when I wake up tomorrow.

@Stratocracy

Hi.

<Snipped quote by Dynamics>

Wat???

@Ignacious

We didn't get any up here. I heard you guys got a ton.

[DarkwolfX37]

I'm so torn because I want to watch the DDLC Game Theory but I also want to figure it all out on my own like ICEY.

[Etcetera]

I'm so torn because I want to watch the DDLC Game Theory but I also want to figure it all out on my own like ICEY.

@DarkwolfX37

NO!

WE HAD SUCH A WHOLESOME FANBASE AND MATPAT JUST HAS TO STICK HIS NOSE INTO IT AND RUIN IT!

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

NO!

WE HAD SUCH A WHOLESOME FANBASE AND MATPAT JUST HAS TO STICK HIS NOSE INTO IT AND RUIN IT!

@Etcetera

He's not ruining anything :/
He's basically just saying how the next game is.

[Etcetera]

<Snipped quote by Etcetera>

He's not ruining anything :/
He's basically just saying how the next game is.

@DarkwolfX37

It's the rapid exposure that's the problem. I do have a little more confidence now that the general "cutsie-animeVNstuffs" will be enough of a deterrent to prevent the kind of influx of children FNaF and Undertale had—as the internet would put it, "its power level is too high for normies." Eternal September is a real phenomenon and DDLC is too wholesome to fall prey to it.

[Mammalia]

<Snipped quote by Ignacious>

You had snow...

@Dynamics

i hope we get snow too
when we go up to the mountains for three days :[

[Etcetera]

<Snipped quote by Dynamics>

i hope we get snow too
when we go up to the mountains for three days :[

@Mammalia

_{To be honest I don't even like snow so you can have all of ours except for the San Antonio region.}

[Mammalia]

<Snipped quote by Mammalia>

_{To be honest I don't even like snow so you can have all of ours except for the San Antonio region.}

@Etcetera

i really want snow