thesometimesaint Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I've never said he was the single rogue agent. As head of the FCC he is a very powerful one however. A bad argument is still a bad argument no matter how many support it. It is actually an argument about free speech and freedom of the press. Without the ability to make your views known both are rather meaningless. Link to comment
pogi Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: A bad argument is still a bad argument no matter how many support it. More ad hominem attacks! That's all I get from you guys. You can call me "naive", "insane", or that I (or Pai) make "bad arguments", but until you actually address our valid concerns with net neutrality, you all just sound hollow. 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: It is actually an argument about free speech and freedom of the press. So now that I have thoroughly dismantled your "monopoly" argument, it is not about that anymore, it is about "free speech"? That is a strawman. This is not some "experiment", the internet was without net neutrality up until 2015 and no new organization ever complained about ISPs blocking their content. In fact, I already showed you arguments from the New York Times and Washington Post against net neutrality! The only difference that we have witnessed since net neutrality is decreased investment in infrastructure and a less competitive market place. Link to comment
Recommended Posts