SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
In February 2015, the FCC's then-Democratic leadership led by Chairman Tom Wheeler classified broadband as "telecommunications," superseding the previous treatment of broadband as a less heavily regulated "information service." This was crucial in the rulemaking process because telecommunications providers are regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, the authority used by the FCC to impose bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
Thus, when the FCC's new Republican majority voted on May 18 to start the process of eliminating the current net neutrality rules, the commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) also proposed redefining broadband as an information service once again.
To make sure the net neutrality rollback survives court challenges, newly appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai must justify his decision to redefine broadband less than three years after the previous change. He argues that broadband isn't telecommunications because it isn't just a simple pipe to the Internet. Broadband is an information service because ISPs give customers the ability to visit social media websites, post blogs, read newspaper websites, and use search engines to find information, the FCC's new proposal states. Even if the ISPs don't host any of those websites themselves, broadband is still an information service under Pai's definition because Internet access allows consumers to reach those websites.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:58PM (6 children)
finally, a posting without some moron endlessly regaling us with buzzards character failings of using a source they dont like...
oops, spoke too soon...
arent u getting blisters on your butt from endlessly galloping on that hobbyhorse ? ? ?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:10PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:13PM (4 children)
Is not about sources I don't like it. Its about the editors repeatedly being suckered into uncritically posting stories that are essentially lies and all the fools here keep falling for it over and over again.
The reason he sources from those places is because he isn't interested in the truth or in expanding anyone's knowledge. Only in reducing the signal to noise ratio of the site. A motive he has confessed to. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)
Yup, one of the more active admins on this site is actively trying to make it worse, spams constantly with garbage posts, promotes the alt-right viewpoints and tries very hard to appear rational. His purported aim? To point out that people will ignore a message based on the messenger. No shit sherlock, if a story comes from the Enquirer I'm going to likely dismiss it until I see it coming from a reputable source. Milo and breitbart? The boy who cried wolf. Trying to validate personal beliefs by trolling other people into saying something in-congruent, or calling bullshit on a valid article just because it came from a garbage source, well that is a really lame tactic that has been driving down the quality on the site ever since the election really got emotions up.
GOOD JOB tearing down what was supposed to be a refuge from corporate bullshit. Now we have community bullshit 100% supported by at least one of the admins. Long live the trolls /s
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday June 03 2017, @05:22PM (2 children)
so-o-o-o, you confess to being intellectually deficient in that you depend upon appeals to authority/credentialism, and your 'facts' being sourced from -you know- only pre-approved mediawhores...
.
i find it a little puzzling as to why a person would admit they are deeply flawed in favoring style over substance... i generally try to hide my character flaws, not flaunt them...
.
curious, but then, you were far too courageous to put your name to that little gem, a non cow...
(you know, cause you might be persecuted for such a brave stance contrary to the conventional wisdom... oh, wait, it was totally a defense of so-called conventional wisdom, NOT a brave, contrarian stance... oh, well, that does makes you truly a coward, then...)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:32PM (1 child)
You don't really understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority actually is, do you?
This isn't about believing something because somebody said to believe it.
This is about fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice shame on you.
Buzzard has fooled people here dozens of times. He cites sources that are anti-authorities - proven liars.
How many times are you going to let him lie to your face and still trust him?
Especially since he's outright said his goal is to lie to your face.
As for the rest of your post? L O L
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:34PM
cue: Fascist defense that all news sources are equally anti-authorities.