|
Duke Igthorn posted:Read ANY comment section on the topic and there'll be that one person with the "Yeah, but what about all the other people he DIDN'T investigate? He only went after this one guy because he's the least biased and he's just ignoring all the other far more biased people so it will LOOK like there's no more bias left!" Pass, thanks
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Dimebags Brain posted:A Good Cartoon. Discendo Vox posted:This is your periodic reminder that Mike Flugennock works for Russian propaganda agencies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
EDIT: On second though this might be threat worthy? Not sure, edited out anyways.
World Famous W fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants? Pretty much the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants? They literally think the market will save them from ISPs that throttle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
wyoming posted:They literally think the market will save them from ISPs that throttle. If you don’t like one provider go to the next! ... what? Some markets are exclusively one provider in non compete claused areas? Boy is my face red.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants? 50% of the time anti-NN comments are from people who have been convinced it's basically the Fairness Doctrine and think it's been/being used to make conservative media do...something that they don't like. 40% of the time anti-NN comments are making the same bad "some companies are just sucking up too much bandwidth" arguments that gave us "The internet is a series of tubes" way back in 2006 10% of the time anti-NN comments are just from craven corporate shills who are totally down with being able get all fucky again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Crain posted:5% of the time anti-NN comments are from people who have been convinced it's basically the Fairness Doctrine and think it's been/being used to make conservative media do...something that they don't like. 90% of the time anti-NN comments are from bots posting under stolen identities
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Expect a happy First Dog on the Moon cartoon soon. https://twitter.com/firstdogonmoon/status/942910927149527040 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/19/eaten-fish-manus-islands-refugee-cartoonist-moves-to-northern-europe
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
 1 2
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
and?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I guess I ain't got to read any more Tom Tomorrow comics till 2021. At least till the mass shooting one becomes inevitably relevant again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
ENHANCE 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants? I'd say one of the biggest factors is the usual conservative cry of "the Government controls our lives too much", which of course is hilarious considering they are also the ones against legal abortions, and various other things. As per usual, it's the everything about Government control is bad, unless its something we want to control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
The gently caress is that Kirschen? "
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
And I’d very likely be willing to put money down that he’s a part of Russian propaganda efforts to further internally destabilize the US.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
What's this one trying to say, that mass shootings will stop in 2018?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants? The most rational argument I heard about it is this: With Net Neutrality, ISPs cannot charge separately for access to certain websites. Let's say that under this system, All Access Internet costs $100 for ease of comparison. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will likely break out access or services into "optional" bundles. This could look something like this (again, numbers are just for comparison, and are not meant to be exact): Basic Internet: $75 Fast Social Media: $10 per site Fast Streaming: $15 per site And so for people who don't use social media and maybe use 1 streaming site at most, this will be a price cut. After all, basically everyone complains that they have to get a big bundle when they get TV, so why shouldn't the same rules apply to Net Neutrality? Now, I'm pretty sure that this is possibly right. Repealing Net Neutrality does have a potential upside in allowing ISPs to provide more customized - and possibly cheaper - services for people. However, A) they probably won't actually be cheaper and B) There are a fuckton of downsides to it as well. Something doesn't have to have literally no possible advantages in order to be Really Bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
The Cartoonist Doesn't Understand The Republican Tax Bill
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:And I’d very likely be willing to put money down that he’s a part of Russian propaganda efforts to further internally destabilize the US. K. And?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
We just need to stay calm and vote for centrist Democrats, none of this "fight the actual problem in a literal effective sense" craziness. People who sabotage capital are no better than literal nazi's marching in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:We just need to stay calm and vote for centrist Democrats, none of this "fight the actual problem in a literal effective sense" craziness. People who sabotage capital are no better than literal nazi's marching in the streets. We oppose extremists on the right who want to murder all non-whites, ground their bones into dust and build a perfect Aryan union fueled by a hatred unimaginably pure. We also oppose equally extreme movements on the left who want a higher tax rate on incomes over $200,000.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Honestly though, really impressed that "The russians are destabilizing our country through these crazy leftists!" is coming back in fashion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6taS9R1KM
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:The most rational argument I heard about it is this: You are correct. The issue is that ISPs have zero incentive to actually make things cheaper rather than just charge us all more. There's not enough competition to force them to do this, so no "free market" solution is going to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Internet Kraken posted:You are correct. The issue is that ISPs have zero incentive to actually make things cheaper rather than just charge us all more. There's not enough competition to force them to do this, so no "free market" solution is going to work. Canada is a good example of this I think. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) made a ruling that our big cable/telecom companies had to make a basic cable package, at an affordable price, and also offer channels without being put in bundles. Their reasoning for this was that Canadians are supposed to have access to the the information on TV, so of course it was seen as a measure to help lower income families get access. It also came from people complaining that the only way they could get a channel like AMC, would be to play for a bundle of around 5 channels, which most would not watch any of the other channels. So they role out the new rules, and the first thing the companies do is put out a basic bundle which costs as much as it already did for basic cable (my bill actually went up). When people called to ask their cable companies for the new basic package, they would be fed misinformation on what they would be getting, or that they had to bundle all their services together to get access. The singular channels just rose in price to get those channels, to make up for the lost money on the bundled channels. HBO alone up here is $10 just for the channel, which of course does not offer everything that the states gets on their HBO, plus no HBO Go to go with it. The lesson, as usual, is that a company will never willingly cut a price on anything, and people assuming they will are so naive, I don't know how they made it this far in life. Our companies were basically told you have to lower prices straight up, and they found every loophole they could to make sure they didn't lose a single dollar. That said, the CRTC is trash too, so I mean it's pretty much just like the FCC at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Inside those presents are food, shelter, heat, and other incredibly important necessities for the poor. They both walk to their Abrams tank to drive over to Boeing to give them another Trillion dollars for a plane that doesn't fly. FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Once the poor evolve to properly digest lead bullets and lead water all the problems will be solved!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
King Superman posted:90% of the time anti-NN comments are from bots posting under stolen identities both sides though, c'mon bro, both sidesssssssssssssssssssssssss
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:The most rational argument I heard about it is this:
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Internet Kraken posted:You are correct. The issue is that ISPs have zero incentive to actually make things cheaper rather than just charge us all more. There's not enough competition to force them to do this, so no "free market" solution is going to work. A reminder the free market believes in data caps. Another round of "This Cartoonist doesn't understand Net Neutrality" might be appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
ScentOfAnOtaku posted:Canada is a good example of this I think. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) made a ruling that our big cable/telecom companies had to make a basic cable package, at an affordable price, and also offer channels without being put in bundles. Their reasoning for this was that Canadians are supposed to have access to the the information on TV, so of course it was seen as a measure to help lower income families get access. It also came from people complaining that the only way they could get a channel like AMC, would be to play for a bundle of around 5 channels, which most would not watch any of the other channels. It's more or less the same in the USA. Cable providers have to have a basic package (so local broadcast, maybe a couple extra channels and a whole bunch of home shopping BS). However they are under no pressure to promote or even inform people of it so they just hustle you on the most bloated bundle they can manage. So many people wind up with a bunch of poo poo they never watch, unaware that the basic package would give them what they want (local channels) at a fraction of the price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Inside those presents are food, shelter, heat, and other incredibly important necessities for the poor. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Honestly though, really impressed that "The russians are destabilizing our country through these crazy leftists!" is coming back in fashion. Thanks, Ted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
King Superman posted:90% of the time anti-NN comments are from bots posting under stolen identities Wait...you mean this one might not be real?? https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12I'm hoping we get some good cartoons about the new animatronic Trump at Disney's Hall of Presidents. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:I honestly can't understand how anyone can be on the side against net neutrality. Like, what is their actual argument? Is there actually one or is it just complete misinformation and rambles about "Freedom!" from people paid by telecom giants? Some authority told them to hate NN and they are boot lickers to the core so heck YES Net Neutrality is BAD! It's as easy as that. The majority of humanity just wants to be led.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
That was clearly a Hillary animatronic hastily changed to be Trump. It haunts my dreams and thoughts now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
World Famous W posted:That was clearly a Hillary animatronic hastily changed to be Trump. It haunts my dreams and thoughts now. I thought the exact same thing 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:17
|
|