Net Neutrality Officially Ended

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2018, 06:22 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This is true. IMO, you may be the most polite poster on the board.

I bet you say that to all the really, really, really great posters. 

[Dill]

(06-12-2018, 06:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No more comments from me about the ratio in bottom 10 or the general rankings as I am too focused on it.

And yes we judge policy by effect. Well we should anyway, but it seems the new norm is to judge policy by who implemented it.

Normally we don't judge it the next day, though. And we also look at whom it affects--whom it benefits and whom it does not.

Your "new norm" may be referring to the norm used by the US right to judge Obama--e.g., the firestorm which followed his expressed willingness to deal with Kim Jung Un.  Not so new after all.

If you are thinking of Trump, the new norm is actually an old norm--a leader's knowledge and judgment do matter in assessing the likely value and efficacy of his policy proposals, along with looking at how free market solutions for utilities have worked out in the past.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2018, 06:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Normally we don't judge it the next day, though. And we also look at whom it affects--whom it benefits and whom it does not.

Your "new norm" may be referring to the norm used by the US right to judge Obama--e.g., the firestorm which followed his expressed willingness to deal with Kim Jung Un.  Not so new after all.

If you are thinking of Trump, the new norm is actually an old norm--a leader's knowledge and judgment do matter in assessing the likely value and efficacy of his policy proposals, along with looking at how free market solutions for utilities have worked out in the past.

Hell, many judged this one 6 months before it started. Judging the next day is being quite pragmatic. 


Oh I have no doubt there have been biased folks that have judged policy simply by who implemented it for years; just seems a little more prevalent now.

For example there is a current thread where folks are bending over backwards to try to paint the NK summit in a negative light and I guarantee it has 0 to do with the content of the summit. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2018, 06:22 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This is true. IMO, you may be the most polite poster on the board.

I bet you say that to all the really, really, really great posters. 

[Dill]

(06-12-2018, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For example there is a current thread where folks are bending over backwards to try to paint the NK summit in a negative light and I guarantee it has 0 to do with the content of the summit. 

I saw a thread about that summit. People were quoting news reports and a copy of the agreement.

Are you saying that comments on that thread make inferences about it which are not rooted in the facts as currently given by news media?

Or is it the "negative painting" you object to, regardless of what the facts allow us to say about that summit?

I ask because Trump, whom you frequently defend, seems to care little for whether people's statements are grounded in some factual record. Rather, his big issue is whether they show him in a positive or a negative light, not whether they are true or false. Hence all the accusations of fake news and disparagement of honest reporters, while his supporters trip over themselves trying to praise him over every little thing.  How would a guy like that construct a cabinet and then operate with it? Wait . . . I just said something negative, didn't I.  Are you judging whether my statement can be grounded in shared observations or just whether it is "negative"?  Would you say your standards of judgment align with or diverge from Trump's?

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2018, 07:34 PM)Dill Wrote: I saw a thread about that summit. People were quoting news reports and a copy of the agreement.

Are you saying that comments on that thread make inferences about it which are not rooted in the facts as currently given by news media?

Or is it the "negative painting" you object to, regardless of what the facts allow us to say about that summit?

I ask because Trump, whom you frequently defend, seems to care little for whether people's statements are grounded in some factual record. Rather, his big issue is whether they show him in a positive or a negative light, not whether they are true or false. Hence all the accusations of fake news and disparagement of honest reporters, while his supporters trip over themselves trying to praise him over every little thing.  How would a guy like that construct a cabinet and then operate with it? Wait . . . I just said something negative, didn't I.  Are you judging whether my statement can be grounded in shared observations or just whether it is "negative"?  Would you say your standards of judgment align with or diverge from Trump's?

Well you know where the thread is and I have posted my comments there in. No need to derail this one. It might take me a while to respond though as I just found out my ISP is going back to dial up because of net neutrality repeal, 

[Au165]

(06-12-2018, 05:24 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So your saying the free market will correct itself? Huh. Who would've thought?

In theory, but the issue is all these mergers are consolidating the free market into cartels. In a vacuum it should fix itself but some of these other things happening could stop it from occurring, which is why the rules should be in place as a preventative measure.

[Millhouse]

(06-12-2018, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you know where the thread is and I have posted my comments there in. No need to derail this one. It might take me a while to respond though as I just found out my ISP is going back to dial up because of net neutrality repeal, 

Net neutrality repeal wouldn't cause that, as that isnt what it prevented.

But if your ISP was owned by a Steeler's fan and he or she says to throttle down the speeds of all Bengals websites and forum like BengalsBoard to super slow speeds unless the sites owners (Holic) pony up and pay them big bucks to have normal speeds again, now that can actually happen without net neutrality.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2018, 04:03 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Net neutrality repeal wouldn't cause that, as that isnt what it prevented.

But if your ISP was owned by a Steeler's fan and he or she says to throttle down the speeds of all Bengals websites and forum like BengalsBoard to super slow speeds unless the sites owners (Holic) pony up and pay them big bucks to have normal speeds again, now that can actually happen without net neutrality.

Steelers fans still have giant satellite dishes in their trailer parks.  I don't think we have to worry about them owning ISPs. Well except for bandwagon Rush. He could probably own something.