We can't afford to stop, though. The internet is an integral part of our everyday lives, and that's why it's so criminal that these corporate fat cats have a virtual monopoly on the industry, and are trying to take even more. If I turn off my internet, i'm losing more than just my recreational pastime; i'm also losing work, I can't go anywhere, I lose most communication with my friends and family, etc. Our lives DEPEND on the Internet. And yeah sure, maybe we could take a day or two or heck, even a week, and just cancel our subscriptions, but we're fighting a losing battle that way. They can sit on their hands for months--how long do you think your aunt can go without Netflix? Or you without Porn?

Lol. You are thinking about the private sector.

Just imagine a company using website for their services and comcast decides they do not pay enough..

Yeah. That would be possible. Basically its about handing a few selected companies the control over the most frequently used and biggest communication network on the planet. At least in the US.

Thats fucking scary as shit

people can be paid by hand or mail, so the internet is not required, people can also use cell phones, *bye bye comcast/verizon/att, sprint all the way!* and theres magazines for porn, or hard drives, you dont need internet to start a computer after all. plus, as killua said, private sector people could be screwed too, but they can put up flyers. our lives might be integrated with the internet, but we lived for millions of years without it, we can do it again, even if its just for...say...6 months, to get the message across that we dont need it

As somebody who works in IT: You are so wrong..Much of our infrastructure relies on the internet now. From medical equipment to private stuff.

Just because we used to live witout does not mean we can just go back. Quite frankly going back could ruin many companies. Or make them flatout unable to do business in the first place.

Its like saying: "Well we lived in caves once right?"

Thats not how it works. And no its not a bad thing that we rely so heavily on the internet. What is bad is to suddenly remove that or to try to shift control to single corporations.

Another thing i could bring up. By your logic we could get rid of penicillin. We lived without it before right?

And some people rely on the internet for a living just like people rely on penicillin.

Its not that easy. Only a person who never spend a second behind the scenes would think that.

its one thing to get rid of penicilin and homes, those are things that are deemed medically and structurally life enhancing, as we're now better able to withstand the elements and diseases. and while yes, a bunch of infrastructure relies on the internet, its not a necessity in the same way as food or shelter is, but more like a car, where we could just as well walk from california to maine, but its easier to drive. the majority of uses are for personal/consumer use and not commercial use for places of business or hospitals. and i wasnt even saying take them away permanently, as ive put forward multiple times, just treat it like we did prohibition. it was voted on, people made their own distilleries, rioted, and fucked around even without alcohol, the government saw how bad an idea it was, and repealed it. with the net neutrality thing: corporations want more money, we stop giving it to them, they see how bad an idea it is and they repeal it, and it doesnt have to be as wide spread as you say, a lot of major institutions such as hospitals and schools are subsidized by the government, and more than likely wouldnt be affected by such a bill anyways, its only you and i, the average jacker offer who would be hit by it, which is why i make the points that i do.

Ok 1. Paragraphs. Your textblocks are hard to read.

2. Thats not how it works. Its not that simple. Its not something we can just stop doing for a few months..Ok look.

The internet is literally keeping people alive. There is medical equipment that is observed through the internet. There are for example devices that use the internet to give a signal when a patient is in danger.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg. Your idea is for corporations, hospitals, for pretty much everybody, private person or not to just "stop using the thing for a few months".

That kills people. It literally kills them. Your cellphone is connected to the internet and you think you can just stop using it? Just like that?

The penicillin thing was a great example. things are not this simple. Its like suggesting we get rid of phones because we used letters once. Or we get rid of television because we got radio. Hell that actually would be more doable considering we have the internet now.

Planes, cars, hospitals, companies, the list is endless. If you would, from one day to another, allow people to control the internet traffic?

Then these people would have the world by its balls. YOU may be able to stop. But for the 76 year old guy with the pacemaker thats not an option.

And you think schools or hospitals would not be affected? AHAHAHAHA

In the USA where private companies are literally controlling most of the market even in formerly governmental sectors? With a goverment that rolls over for bankers when they whistle?


It is just not doable. Its impossible. You are suggesting something that is, from a pure technical standpoint alone, utterly and absolutely impossible.

Its like you would say: Dont use cars for 6 months.

It can not be done

ok, fine, do you have any better ideas then? even if we stop it now, theyre just going to try again under the next president, and the next and the next until they get it right. at least my idea would show the magnitude of their error and would get them to stop.

Like bethesda stopped payed mods after it failing spectacularly?

Like that?

Or Like the whoe nazi stuff?

Or like the new 52?


I am sorry but thats how the cookie crumbles. They will try many more times and the only thing we can do is fight them. Fight them till they are out of breath.

Your idea is not showing them the errors of their ways. If anything it would be the equivalent of a monk setting itself on fire to protest: "We rather die and fuck our economy than let this happen".

Sadly thats not an option here.

So we have to keep blocking till they run out of air. That simple

they have billions of dollars in their banks, i have 50, i think their lungs can fill up more than mine

Thats why we block the law, not "stop giving them money". Pick your fights.

thats what i was saying though, they can put millions, if not billions into each attempt at a law, and all i can do is ask someone not to vote for it, but how likely do you think theyll listen to me when part of those billions are those saying "yes, vote for it and ill give you more"

then the real problem is political corruption; no one should be able to buy a law in a democratic society.

I can't tell if I'm losing or gaining IQ while reading a discussion regarding the laws around networking that just so happens to take place on a porn website.

What is life?

Basically what jellomans argument boils down to is:

They can buy the government so lets start killing ourselves to make a difference.

Warning: Controversial statement incoming:

That has worked so great for Tibet..

its only killing ourselves if you apply the slippery slope fallacy. you could have said the same thing about prohibition the gobment wants to take our booze away so lets start binging ourselves on beer to make a difference. that was my point. when the government tries to take away or fondle with our rights, the most effective *not necessarily the best or the wisest, but the way that opens their eyes the most* is by hittin them where it hurts, the idea behind the prohibition rallies was "you cant put us all in jail, and we need our vices" so hundreds if not thousands or even millions mini distilleries showed up across the map, much like now "if youre going to take my net away, why should i even bother paying for it" i never said it was the BEST idea, just that it was an idea that would make them squirm the most