I should have read your comment in a more favorable light, as the community guidelines say, so I apologize for that. I admit the image of the government sawing off the only branch it’s standing on with regulation is humorous.
Obviously preventing speeding up video delivery with no negative impact to quality is not the intent of Net Neutrality. The intent also, however, is not to prevent “a slightly worse consumer product”. Corporate censorship of the Internet for financial gain could do as much damage as government censorship for political gain. But the common element in both cases is one party having too much control because they’re the only game in town. And the people pushing for “public Internet” absolutely terrify me.
That said, I don’t think preventing title II government regulation of the Internet would prevent government censorship of it. I’d remind you how willingly companies like AT&T worked with the NSA to enable their wiretapping in the early stages of PRISM. They gave them a freaking secret wiretapping room in their building with a fiber optic splitter. Why would we think they wouldn’t be just as compliant with government censorship under similar threats or incentives?
I have hopes for mesh Internet providers to solve all of this. Competition is the only answer I see, and I think our philosophies align there at least.
Excessive government interference in the establishment of Internet infrastructure is what created the ISP monopolies we have today, it surprises me that a libertarian would be pleased to see those government-enabled monopolies completely eliminate consumer choice. If the establishment of those ISPs had played by free market rules and had to pay for their own infrastructure, we would likely have an actual free market and actual choice, and no need for net neutrality regulation in the first place. Multiple ISPs, each in different parts of the city with overlapping coverage, and all too afraid of each other to step on the consumer like this.
But now that the government created a situation where most of us only have one choice in ISP thanks to using taxpayer money to build all but the last mile and refusing to let smaller players in... Now you want the regulation to end? Huh.
Sorry to leave two comments in the same thread, but while I’m here... A tablespoon of turmeric weighs about 8 grams, so I don’t see why 4.5 would be an unrealistic amount to consume per day.
Coffee is only about 1.8% caffeine by weight, but it gets the job done.
Combining curcumin with piperine (from black pepper) increases curcumin’s bioavailability by 2000%, something many studies on curcumin fail to take into account. Cultures with a history of turmeric consumption often combine it with black pepper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9619120/
Death is not the ultimate side effect at all. The ultimate side effect I can think of would occur when these genetically modified humans reproduce - a permanently corrupted human genome with unforeseen, potentially species-ending side effects down the line. We don’t know what we don’t know yet.
I work contract. I work 9-5 and I get as much done as I can. If that means missing a client deadline, it means missing a deadline. They should have planned ahead, and it’s simply not my problem. If that means losing a client, I’ll have another one tomorrow. I won’t, however, be able to repair damage to my personal life or relationships if I constantly allow my schedule to be dictated by clients - been there, done that, burned out, never again. I’m simply not desperate enough for money to work as a slave, and I’m not foolish enough to act as though I am.
Obviously preventing speeding up video delivery with no negative impact to quality is not the intent of Net Neutrality. The intent also, however, is not to prevent “a slightly worse consumer product”. Corporate censorship of the Internet for financial gain could do as much damage as government censorship for political gain. But the common element in both cases is one party having too much control because they’re the only game in town. And the people pushing for “public Internet” absolutely terrify me.
That said, I don’t think preventing title II government regulation of the Internet would prevent government censorship of it. I’d remind you how willingly companies like AT&T worked with the NSA to enable their wiretapping in the early stages of PRISM. They gave them a freaking secret wiretapping room in their building with a fiber optic splitter. Why would we think they wouldn’t be just as compliant with government censorship under similar threats or incentives?
I have hopes for mesh Internet providers to solve all of this. Competition is the only answer I see, and I think our philosophies align there at least.