Just out of curiosity...

Now that the FCC voted 3 Republicans to 2 Democrats to end “net neutrality” how might that impact on those of us who come here?

Technically, in other words, what might happen?

From the Daily Beast: thedailybeast.com/fcc-votes … -to-access

I would be surprised if it had any measurable impact on anyone’s ability to access this site.

That article isn’t a great background piece. It focuses mostly on a character assassination of Pai, ignores that the Obama-appointed chair of the FTC submitted comments supporting repeal, gets the history of net neutrality wrong, and doesn’t discuss the actual arguments that both sides have to support their position.

Net neutrality is a difficult issue. There are good arguments for it, but there are also good arguments against it, and both sides have big businesses interests behind them. Both sides also have strong arguments that their position benefits consumers.

The debate has been highly politicized, and picked up as a cause largely because of misleading rhetoric propagated by content companies that have a strong business interest in keeping the rules in place. Not surprisingly, the companies that are serving content find it easier to make their case to consumers than do the ‘plumbing’ companies who are doing something wrong if consumers notice that they’re there. It also doesn’t help that it’s the Trump administration, so that a complex policy issue gets tribalized as Trump versus the Resistance.

This is a more impartial summary of the issue (though the end makes it clear that this author is not actually impartial either).

Thanks to both of you for posting that information. I’ve been curious about that also myself.^^^^

That’s good to know. I think.

Figures. It’s from a liberal website. Though I’m sure the conservative websites have their own rendition of it.

Two words: conflicting goods

Two more words [legislatively]: political economy

As for the part about dasein…I’ll spare you.

It’s in there though. :wink:

The river that flows through Paris?

Pretty sure that is the Seine river.

Actually, I was thinking of the other one. But, sure, that too.

And then , just because its in the light , it may not deserve the other one to live up to its allusion to being of it.

Seems Net Neutrality meant the darkroom government decided which people could and which could not reach the public. It meant net-neutering. Like gender-neutrality is a fancy word for castration.

Why oh why would you copy and paste the whole page? That is barely readable. The majority of what you posted is not content, it’s noise.

Even assuming that the best way to make your point here is to parrot a point that was made elsewhere, there are at least two better options:

  1. copy and paste the actual text you’re trying to show people (i.e. not the number of posts a user has made etc.) by deleting the parts you aren’t trying to show people; or
  2. just put a link to the post you want people to read from.

Either of those would make the point you’re trying to make/repeat here clearer.

And why are you even parroting e.g. someone saying “‘Obolkonet’, hahahaha. Fucking priceless.” That’s the verbal equivalent of a Facebook like, what does that add to this discussion?
Good god man.

The distinction is that now instead of having a public government choosing what information is controlling your beliefs, you have the shadow, corporate government far more insidiously painting your worldview, against which you have no defense at all (which is why they exist).

At least the “corporate government” is a devil-we-know. Corporations’ motives are transparent as can be: they seek profit. The government is much less transparent, made up of elected representatives and life-tenure bureaucrats with motives from glory to greed to laziness to misguided principle etc.

So you know that one is the Devil and untouchable. And you suspect the other might be as well.

Let’s not stretch the colloquialism too far. Whatever flaws corporations have, the government is rife with flaws of its own, and corporations are predictable.

Also of note:
Expert polling suggests that the issue is fairly uncertain:
Here are the results from 2013 (for a question about net consumer benefit), and here are results from 2014, asking more generally about whether it’s “a good idea”. Both show significant uncertainty, with the former leaning slightly opposed and the latter leaning more strongly in favor. I’d summarize as mostly uncertain, more likely good, but not because of consumer benefit.

Seriously, what do polls really mean to philosophers?

I floated down that one on one of those tourist boats where they explain all the buildings in 5 languages as you float by them. Not bad.

Do you mean philosophers who have an appropriate amount of epistemic humility? They should generally defer to experts in fields where they are not themselves experts, and thus to polls of those experts.

Nullius en Verba.
Who took the poll?

“Nine out of ten doctors recommend…”

The respondents are listed by name next to their responses, with links to their bios.