Originally Posted by Bbickes

Rule fucking 1 and rule fucking 2.

Originally Posted by Galapogos

Maybe I'm super paranoid of stuff like this, but isn't shit like this giving ISPs an excuse to start blocking sites? Thus ushering in an era of internet censorship? I mean Google is one of the biggest proponents of open everything and all those good ideals everyone wants and they want to attack it?

Do I sound like someone's mom? Can someone enlighten me? I honestly have trouble seeing the appeal of /b/

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Naw, it's about the money. ISPs don't care about anon or similar stuff. What they want is a lack of neutrality which will give them a monopoly on access and usage allowing them to autonomously censor content based on revenue

/b/ is not to be worried about. What is to be worried about is corporate control over the web market, and it honestly looks like the FCC is trying to give in. Which will be a fucking disaster

This is why I said b can only attack simple evils. It's been tried time and again to get b to care about things like net neutrality, but due to it not being super simple, it goes by the wayside. This is effectively the complaint of the oldfags, but they don't realize that b never was capable of attacking anything that wasn't ridiculously one-sided and simple. Taking on Scientology is easy, everybody hates them, but supporting net neutrality is hard because 3/4 of the populace are abject retards hellbent on blasting themselves in the ass with their own stupidity

Originally Posted by Galapogos

Maybe I'm super paranoid of stuff like this, but isn't shit like this giving ISPs an excuse to start blocking sites? Thus ushering in an era of internet censorship? I mean Google is one of the biggest proponents of open everything and all those good ideals everyone wants and they want to attack it?

Do I sound like someone's mom? Can someone enlighten me? I honestly have trouble seeing the appeal of /b/

Originally Posted by bigred

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

At what point do we draw the line on what the bold applies to? It's kind of like with freedom of speech, if we want it then we have to take the bad with the good. I mean do we want to censor porn just because it's a kind of porn we don't like? Or do we censor all porn? Do we censor poker sites? Do we censor Google because its results can be manipulated? Do we want to line up and gang-bang Miley Cyrus the day she turns 18... err I mean...

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Naw, it's about the money. ISPs don't care about anon or similar stuff. What they want is a lack of neutrality which will give them a monopoly on access and usage allowing them to autonomously censor content based on revenue

/b/ is not to be worried about. What is to be worried about is corporate control over the web market, and it honestly looks like the FCC is trying to give in. Which will be a fucking disaster

This is why I said b can only attack simple evils. It's been tried time and again to get b to care about things like net neutrality, but due to it not being super simple, it goes by the wayside. This is effectively the complaint of the oldfags, but they don't realize that b never was capable of attacking anything that wasn't ridiculously one-sided and simple. Taking on Scientology is easy, everybody hates them, but supporting net neutrality is hard because 3/4 of the populace are abject retards hellbent on blasting themselves in the ass with their own stupidity

Originally Posted by Galapogos

Kinda drunkard right now so not too sure if you're arguuing with me but I;m not saying because of shit like this they should use it as an excuse to block sites, btu king of implying that blocking sites is bad. And agree its bas because of the reasons it seems like you said.

And if youre not arguing with me then my bad. And please teach me how you were gonna rig the 1M post contest because that seems interstsing.