|
Jewel Repetition posted:Corporations spend three times more money lobbying against net neutrality than lobbying for it. no they don't, as the regular media companies lobby for it a ton (because it means they have to pay less to continue to receive their primary revenue stream). they just don't specifically mark it down as lobbying for net neutrality so much as lobbying for media, in the same sort of place you'd mark down lobbying for increased copyright enforcement and so on yes we've already established you have trouble understanding things
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
fishmech posted:no they don't, as the regular media companies lobby for it a ton (because it means they have to pay less to continue to receive their primary revenue stream). they just don't specifically mark it down as lobbying for net neutrality so much as lobbying for media, in the same sort of place you'd mark down lobbying for increased copyright enforcement and so on If this speculation turned out to be true it still probably wouldn't be enough to significantly change the ratio. fishmech posted:yes we've already established you have trouble understanding things Well again, I don't think I misunderstood anything, and you haven't presented anything that shows I did. I'm also not sure you're the best judge of the art of understandery after you had those problems with the term "social democrat" and the TPP leaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
here are underballot prediction graphs  sam wang says the presidential election is very stable - i feel like the house one is kinda unstable but thats probably just because they're averaging fewer polls with bigger swings on the obscure generic congressional question tim canova is dead but i wonder if hes getting relentlessly owned at his day job for this is he a law school professor or something? they're probably being nice to him maybe they gave him a standing ovation at the start of class 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:If this speculation turned out to be true it still probably wouldn't be enough to significantly change the ratio. it's not speculation, and it already is true. yes you misunderstand things so badly that you don't notice that you misunderstand things, we've covered this. the tpp is good, op, and your objections to it are ludicrous and unsubstantiated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:it's not speculation, and it already is true. Source? fishmech posted:yes you misunderstand things so badly that you don't notice that you misunderstand things, we've covered this. the tpp is good, op, and your objections to it are ludicrous and unsubstantiated. Are you sure you aren't thinking of... yourself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Source? media companies have spent billions upon billions on lobbying for decades. it's definitely you, m8
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:media companies have spent billions upon billions on lobbying for decades. Sure, but that's not what's in question. It's how often they fold net neutrality lobbying into other categories, and whether in total it significantly changes the proportion of lobbying for net neutrality. Unless you've got some kind of source for that, then I was right to characterize it as speculation. fishmech posted:it's definitely you, m8 Turn your monitor on. Jewel Repetition has issued a correction as of 19:18 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Sure, but that's not what's in question. It's how often they fold net neutrality lobbying into other categories, and whether in total it significantly changes the proportion of lobbying for net neutrality. Unless you've got some kind of source for that, then I was right to characterize it as speculation. all the time dude. net neutrality is a major factor in high profits for any company that delivers media online. cbs doesn't want to have to pay extra etc. meanwhile being against net neutrality doesn't generally tie into anything else directly, so it comes out more directly. and no you're not right. it's your monitor that needs to turn on, m8
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:all the time dude. net neutrality is a major factor in high profits for any company that delivers media online. cbs doesn't want to have to pay extra etc. meanwhile being against net neutrality doesn't generally tie into anything else directly, so it comes out more directly. and no you're not right. Again, that media delivery companies lobby for net neutrality isn't in question, what needs evidence is your extraordinary claim that the lobbying is both unreported and gigantic. There's just no reason to believe that's happening, especially since we have examples of companies that do report it like DISH network. As a bonus, your hypothetical example of CBS is impossible: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000022475
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Again, that media delivery companies lobby for net neutrality isn't in question, what needs evidence is your extraordinary claim that the lobbying is both unreported and gigantic. There's just no reason to believe that's happening, especially since we have examples of companies that do report it like DISH network. it's not unreported, it simply gets reported in general media lobbying. learn to read. and cbs television is owned by cbs corporation, which used to be called Viacom. and viacom spent tons on lobbying across its various subsidiaries
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:it's not unreported, it simply gets reported in general media lobbying. learn to read. I mean unreported as net neutrality-related. Jeez. The point is that you have no evidence this is happening. fishmech posted:and cbs television is owned by cbs corporation, which used to be called Viacom. and viacom spent tons on lobbying across its various subsidiaries Viacom is anti-net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I mean unreported as net neutrality-related. Jeez. The point is that you have no evidence this is happening. you have no evidence that isn't, while we know that tons of politicians had the squeeze put on them by media influence, enough to counterbalance the supposed overwhelming lobbying against net neutrality at times yes, at other times no. similarly to how verizon, for example, is sometimes in favor of net neutrality (namely when it they can use it as a club against competitors) and sometimes against it (when they think they might be able to make more money).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I mean unreported as net neutrality-related. Jeez. The point is that you have no evidence this is happening. They were in 2007 (sort of - it was mostly a reflection of the CEO's misguided belief that net neutrality would interfere with copyright enforcement). These days they're more or less pro net neutrality because their business has shifted. And I was literally one of the staff being lobbied on PIPA, and it was a pretty even split.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Another important thing to remember about not removing the filibuster in 2006 or 2008 is that they had yet to be on the receiving end of the ridiculous usage of the filibuster at that time. It had been getting steadily over used since around Clinton, but under Obama it just got patently ridiculous. While obviously the only moral filibuster is my filibuster, we've reached the point where almost all legislation needs to have at least 60 votes to pass, and that's loving idiotic. I like this chart, but it was Bush 43 and Bush 41. The 39th President was Carter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:I like this chart, but it was Bush 43 and Bush 41.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:you have no evidence that isn't, while we know that tons of politicians had the squeeze put on them by media influence, enough to counterbalance the supposed overwhelming lobbying against net neutrality My evidence is that there are content deliverers who have lobbied openly/specifically for net neutrality instead of folding it up. By the way, I know you have trouble with definitions sometimes, so for your convenience the definition of speculation is literally the forming of a theory without firm evidence. fishmech posted:at times yes, at other times no. similarly to how verizon, for example, is sometimes in favor of net neutrality (namely when it they can use it as a club against competitors) and sometimes against it (when they think they might be able to make more money). Viacom is primarily movies and cable which makes it more likely to be anti (which on balance it is). See the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which which is in the top 5 anti-net neutrality lobbyists and of which Viacom is a member.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:My evidence is that there are content deliverers who have lobbied openly/specifically for net neutrality instead of folding it up. By the way, I know you have trouble with definitions sometimes, so for your convenience the definition of speculation is literally the forming of a theory without firm evidence. yeah and meanwhile, pro net neutrality stuff is usually wrapped up in other things, ya goofball. it's not speculation, it's fact you literally have no idea what you're talking about, lol. both in that you apparently don't know what net neutrality is, and that you think media companies are generally against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Please stop arguing with the guy who claims to be a socialist and yet spends all his time on the internet going to bat for his abuela.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Please stop arguing with the guy who claims to be a socialist and yet spends all his time on the internet going to bat for his abuela. nice meltdown, liberal
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:My evidence is that there are content deliverers who have lobbied openly/specifically for net neutrality instead of folding it up. By the way, I know you have trouble with definitions sometimes, so for your convenience the definition of speculation is literally the forming of a theory without firm evidence. Except NCTA is pro net neutrality and has been for years. They're anti-Title II, but that's because there's more to Title II than neutrality and their members don't really want to deal with the rest of title II (or have to worry about forbearance being lifted.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:yeah and meanwhile, pro net neutrality stuff is usually wrapped up in other things, ya goofball. it's not speculation, it's fact If you don't have any evidence, it's speculation. fishmech posted:you literally have no idea what you're talking about, lol. both in that you apparently don't know what net neutrality is, and that you think media companies are generally against it. Honestly you're the one who doesn't seem to know what net neutrality is based on your arguments. And I didn't say "media companies" are generally against it. Just cable companies. Which they are, and I showed. Kalman posted:Except NCTA is pro net neutrality and has been for years. They're anti-Title II, but that's because there's more to Title II than neutrality and their members don't really want to deal with the rest of title II (or have to worry about forbearance being lifted.) They're not pro net neutrality, they're pro "net neutrality," where they try to redefine the term as "neutral from government interference," i.e. they don't want the FCC to enforce net neutrality. It's the same strategy used by a lot of net neutrality detractors, and it's kind of like when North Korea calls itself a "People's Democratic Republic" or when someone says Democrats are the real racists. Here's a somewhat sickening example of how they do it: http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/09/hipster-net-neutrality-groups-mysterious-backer-gets-outed-its-the-cable-companies/ In terms of what they actually do and not just what they say they do, they lobbied FCC not to enact net neutrality in 2010, then lobbied for SOPA in 2011, then lobbied against reclassification of internet as utility in 2014, then supported legislation in 2015 that would limit the ability of cities to offer public broadband. Even though they supposedly have that principle that the US Gov shouldn't interfere with internet service. Weird huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:If you don't have any evidence, it's speculation. Right, which is why your claim is speculation. no, dude, you don't know what net neutrality is. viacom is not a cable company, and hasn't been since the 90s. so you didn't show anything besides you're really really mad at your own ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/772793541382864896
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:If you don't have any evidence, it's speculation. Banning muni broadband isn't about net neutrality. (It's a separate area of bad policy.). SOPA also isn't net neutrality, except to ideologues - everyone else recognizes that neutrality doesn't include copyright infringement. (SOPA did it badly, but the goal it targeted wasn't bad, nor was it anti-neutrality.). As to your link - my god, they set up suggestion boxes to get people's views on the Internet and tried to convince people Title II regulation was a bad idea. They've been pretty explicit that net neutrality regulation is unnecessary (which is arguable but not without merit as a position) and have supported enforcement via existing mechanisms (primarily antitrust and fair competition approaches.) When the FCC put out their 701 order in 2010, NCTA was cautiously in favor of it as a compromise approach - they didn't think it was needed but more or less felt it was an acceptable outcome. It's only title II that they've fought against tooth and nail (which is unsurprising, given that title II hits their members directly and in a way that has no benefit to them, only hassles.) This used to be one of the issues I actively worked on in Congress. I guarantee I have spent more time talking to NCTA as well as to net neutrality advocates than you have reading about their views. As a reminder, other telecom predictions I made that people here thought were wrong about on which I've been proven right: Wheeler was going to be good and not at all favor ISPs and the telcos lost the 2014 case, even though they formally won it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/774276615354388480 Ugly Q polls across the board for D candidates, though of the 4, only McGinty was an expected pick-up coming into this cycle. e: Strickland I guess too, but that flamed out quick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HolmesJosh/status/774337793979850752
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
The Dems are going to botch drat near everything but the presidency at this rate. Again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:The Dems are going to botch drat near everything but the presidency at this rate. The polling that had Bayh up 21 and 15 were cherry picked leaked internals. You shouldn't have paid any attention to them anyways. There are two [?] independent polls of the race that have Bayh at +8 and +4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/774276615354388480 The only democrat that had a reasonable chance on that list is McGinty, and she's far from a lock. Toomey will hold all the republicans in PA, and I have a pet theory that a lot of iffy Clinton voters will gravitate to Toomey and feel better about voting for a moderate republican and give themselves a big Pat on the back for being bipartisans. (I'm fully aware Toomey is very conservative on most issues, but he is a sane, rational adult and in 2016 that's a selling point and not just a given)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:The Dems are going to botch drat near everything but the presidency at this rate. explain exactly how the dems are botching it
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:explain exactly how the dems are botching it They've the benefit of a toxic republican candidate hurting the rest of the GoP, and they're just barely maintaining slim leads. I'm not crazy enough to think we should be seeing double digit leads or anything, but as of the right now the only Democrat I am firmly confident in would be Hillary. The downticket stuff, even with a crappy GoP, still feels like a coin flip. It's concerning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:explain exactly how the dems are botching it By not appealing to the literal white supremacists that make up ~40% of the electorate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:They've the benefit of a toxic republican candidate hurting the rest of the GoP, and they're just barely maintaining slim leads. I'm not crazy enough to think we should be seeing double digit leads or anything, but as of the right now the only Democrat I am firmly confident in would be Hillary. The downticket stuff, even with a crappy GoP, still feels like a coin flip. It's concerning. not every seat is equally in play, and Trump has shown himself to be not as nuclear an asset as he once was for every race
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Any movement in the NC governor's race?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:here are underballot prediction graphs the house is in play!! nah just kidding. OR WAS I?! Eesh, this election. I want off this roller coaster, even as I know the ride never ends and is all there is anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:the house is in play!! nah just kidding. OR WAS I?! You can't get off until you calculate the percentage effect of Hillary's intricate GOTV operation vs Trump's jerry rigged by the RNC GOTV efforts. Then you add that to the polls, multiply it by the average number of Taco Trucks on the corners of any given area, and then you can determine whether or not Trump will be giving us the Hillary/Nancy DC tag team.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Right, which is why your claim is speculation. It's why your claim is speculation. fishmech posted:no, dude, you don't know what net neutrality is. viacom is not a cable company, and hasn't been since the 90s. so you didn't show anything besides you're really really mad at your own ignorance. Net neutrality means ISPs treat all internet data the same. Viacom owns 26 major cable channels. I showed that cable companies are generally against it because the lobbyist that represents 90% of them is against it. Kalman posted:Banning muni broadband isn't about net neutrality. (It's a separate area of bad policy.). SOPA also isn't net neutrality, except to ideologues - everyone else recognizes that neutrality doesn't include copyright infringement. (SOPA did it badly, but the goal it targeted wasn't bad, nor was it anti-neutrality.). As to your link - my god, they set up suggestion boxes to get people's views on the Internet and tried to convince people Title II regulation was a bad idea. The argument against SOPA wasn't that it was in itself anti-net-neutrality specifically, but all the bad stuff it did would also make the internet less free, which is the underlying issue in net neutrality. And the reason that article I linked was disturbing is that the NCTA created a front organization that falsely claimed to be for net neutrality when it was promoting the opposite. Maybe you're inured to that kind of stuff because of your time in congress but trust me, to a bystander it doesn't look good. Kalman posted:They've been pretty explicit that net neutrality regulation is unnecessary (which is arguable but not without merit as a position) and have supported enforcement via existing mechanisms (primarily antitrust and fair competition approaches.) When the FCC put out their 701 order in 2010, NCTA was cautiously in favor of it as a compromise approach - they didn't think it was needed but more or less felt it was an acceptable outcome. It's only title II that they've fought against tooth and nail (which is unsurprising, given that title II hits their members directly and in a way that has no benefit to them, only hassles.) So they preferred something that more weakly enforced net neutrality, but their favorite of all was no enforcement? Weird how that lines up perfectly with being anti-net-neutrality, kind of like Trump "isn't racist but is #1 with racists." What exactly would Title II do to cable networks, as opposed to ISPs, that isn't good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's why your claim is speculation. nope. nope. net neutrality just means you don't slow down some things on purpose. it's nothing about preventing others from being sped up, say, by the provider buying their own better links to you or paying for in-network cdn. viacom, as owner of cable CHANNELS is not a cable PROVIDER and thus not what is meant by cable COMPANY - in fact they're often opposed to the things cable providers want because they have differeing interests!! no, the underlying issue in net neutrality is not copyright law. the "underlying" and only issue in net neutrality is that providers should not punish certain traffic by intentionally slowing it, beyond the requirements of ensuring fair delivery of content to the user. eg its ok to slow and block outright spam communication and botnets, it's not ok to slow and block bob's video dot com. by the way: this is exactly why content providers are in favor of net neutrality, because they directly have to pay more money if it goes away to stay competitive but of course people who aren't bright enough to understand things think that net neutrality means way the gently caress more than it actually means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
please wave dicks about net neutrality elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
Gyges posted:You can't get off until you calculate the percentage effect of Hillary's intricate GOTV operation vs Trump's jerry rigged by the RNC GOTV efforts. Then you add that to the polls, multiply it by the average number of Taco Trucks on the corners of any given area, and then you can determine whether or not Trump will be giving us the Hillary/Nancy DC tag team. So, Trump, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25 percent chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winnin’ in November! But then you take my 75 perchance chance at winnin’, if we was to go one-on-one, and to add 66 2/3 ch… percents, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winnin in November! See, McTrump; the numbers don’t lie, and they spell disaster for you in November!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 05:48
|
|