The FCC plans to restore Obama-era net neutrality rules

Technology@beehaw.org – 337 points – 1 years ago

FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel has announced the agency's plans to restore net neutrality protections. Previous rules, which prevented ISPs from blocking or throttling specific websites, were nixed in 2017 under the Trump administration.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments

I can see this being an on-again/off-again situation for a long time. When Rs are in power they'll remove it, and when Ds are in power they'll restore it. We need something like this to be enshrined in the law of the land, but more and more it feels like that isn't ever going to be possible as everything will be open to re-interpretation forever.

We need something like this to be enshrined in the law of the land

I suspect that if we taught our people to value education, and made it easily available to them, we wouldn't need to enshrine this particular issue (or many others for that matter) in law.

You cannot teach an extremist to value an education when education destroys extremism.

At a certain point people have to be simply told they are wrong and made to acquiesce to the will of the majority. This is one of those instances.

Made to acquiesce to the will of the majority

That doesn't sound dangerous at all!

Christians are the majority in the USA, would you rather they enshrine into law you must believe in Jesus?

What you most likely mean is that you want to force other people to follow your point of view, which is a dangerous power when granted to everybody, not just the people you agree with.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on this issue, just that the method of enacting change should adapt to be one where the people changing want to change, and consent to it, because you've convinced them - not because you've forced them, whether physically or situationally.

Christians are the majority in the USA, would you rather they enshrine into law you must believe in Jesus?

It may shock you, but the overwhelming majority of Christians would never stand for this.

My experience with American Christianity teaches me that there are three main types (of course, subtypes exist within each type).

(1) the true Christian. S/he would happily talk to you about his/her faith, if prompted, though s/he will never push you to it. This is a two-way conversation, where s/he is as excited to share his/her faith with you, as s/he is to learn about yours. This Christian is more likely to categorize him/herself as a 'Christ-follower' than a 'Christian', due to the stigma created by the other two types of Christians, but won't take offense when s/he is called a Christian, and s/he would often call him/herself 'Christian' when in conversation with others, for the sake of simplicity that it provides to others. This Christian celebrates 'Christmas' as the birth of his/her savior. Though s/he tries to go to church, s/he finds communion with her/his savior anywhere. S/he understands that communion and church are different, and s/he strives for a relationship with his/her god. While there are more of them than the other two types, this Christian is respectful of others, and won't trump others' rights, which often makes them quieter than the masses. This Christian tends to respect your right to believe in whatever you want, though s/he would love it if you, too, started believing.
(2) the media Christian. S/he would happily, and often forcefully, talk to you about his/her religion. Whether or not this person holds the faith is irrelevant, as their followings are surrounding religion, instead of faith (though faith may exist). Because of this, this conversation is one-sided, as s/he talks at you, instead of with you, and the goal of this "conversation" is to convert you to his/her side. Whether this is by choice or by force, is irrelevant. S/he is part of the remnants of the Crusader-types. While there are fewer of them than the other two types, they tend to be the loudest. They celebrate 'Christmas' as a holiday. S/he goes to church and generally shuns those who don't. A communion with his/her god is not the goal of attending church. If you find yourself in a "conversation" with this Christian about his/her religion, you will also find yourself being forcefully pushed into their way of thinking. More often than not, this will become a heated argument.
(3) the non-Christian Christian. S/he was raised in an extreme household of one of the two other types (more often than not, type 2), but is not sure whether s/he believes in the faith or religion, or are just going through the motions. S/he would rather not talk about his/her faith nor his/her religion, because s/he isn't sure what they believe and s/he would rather not dredge up (often negative) memories of his/her parents pushing their religion onto him/her. S/he generally celebrates 'X-mas' as a time to spend with family and friends, and as a break from the humdrum of work/standard daily life. S/he may go to church, but it's a chore, and s/he will eventually cease going. This Christian is 50:50 loud:quiet, depending on how his/her upbringing ended up affecting his/her personality. More often than not, this Christian is against religion, as a whole, but respects your right to believe in whatever you want.

ser the word "they" exists 😂

Haha! I did that first, but didn't want to offend anyone, and redid. So, instead, apparently, I went with s/he, her/his... not sure that's better hahahaha

as an expert^1^ I can affirm that singular usage of they/them is absolutely acceptable in polite conversation with people who may be non-binary or with people whom you don't wish to assume what gender they identify as.

1 - Why am I claiming I am an expert? I'm nonbinary and trans myself; and I moderated /r/genderqueer for a long time; so I do see trends.

You mean say, "they is"? I can't do that. As an early ESL student, "they are" was hammered into me, and using plural noun as a singular noun, or vice versa, physically hurts me (as in, it actually causes me anxiety to say it). I don't mind hearing it, though. If this is not what you meant, would you mind elaborating?

No; afaik as a native speaker we use "they are". Even when using them in the singular form.

I can't do anything about your reaction. Using they as a singular word has been valid for a long time. (at least 10 years)

https://grammarist.com/usage/they/ https://www.verywellmind.com/they-them-pronouns-7110726

The article is dated 2023, which kind of adds to it's modern validity, so thank you for that. It does mention the use of "they are" referring to a singular person, as early as 1375. Looking into that further (off article), its use was generally only accepted when the gender of the person/animal was unknown. Regardless, I don't have an issue saying "they are" when referring to an individual (a Trans, for example). The hella annoying physical reaction is when I try to use "they is". So, follow-up question: "they are my friend" when referring to a Trans is fine? I mean, I don't have to use "they is my friend"?

God the religion vs. faith thing, I'm glad to see someone articulate it. It's bizarre to me how many people are seemingly super hardcore into their religion as a social club, but if you observe them closely they come across like "believing it" is just a game they play for the sake of staying in.

The frequent 'S/he' s make it so tiring to get through this. And calling one of them a 'true Christian' seems a bit biased.

It's all very generalized. I was hoping that was clear. How is it biased calling someone who falls fully into cat1 a True Christian? I'm seriously asking. I'm not starting a fight. I'm genuinely curious how I messed it up.

I just wanted to say that you nailed this perfectly.

Christians may be a majority. But extremist Christians with desires on invading privacy and enforcing their religion on others are a minority.

The ending phrase “this is one of those instances” implies they aren’t arguing the point to the same degree you are.

edit: also, the example you provide isn’t really a concern because freedom of religion is currently a guaranteed constitutional right, and if republicans want to repeal that then guns are also entirely on the table. A better example would be gay marriage, where the majority told the conservative minority to stick it and get over it.

My implication was that we teach them before they become extremists.

But I'll agree that fixing the situation we have already would also be worthwhile.

It's unfortunately a valid "defeatist" point that I hate finding myself falling back into over and over on so many issues. It shouldn't be so hard to say 'yo can you stop taking advantage of me for personal financial gain in every possible scenario'?

"...Nah."
- Capitalism

Next time Rs are in power they are likely to remove democracy from the equation and we won't see another period of Democrats in power.