[2:00 PM] \g: @Protected  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyrguaUn5pUZT0ALS-ecKzqyz3TEjLCe4skFOnPOh2A/edit?usp=sharing read this dumb thing I did
[2:14 PM] AFK: You should elaborate in the first prompt.
[2:15 PM] AFK: It's not directly tied to your field of work, but it relates to everyone.
[2:15 PM] AFK: Give just one example of how it effects you in your field of work since you are also part of that body.
[2:16 PM] AFK: Also this doesn't sound right.
[2:16 PM] AFK: " Because I am arguing for the middle ground, each of my key points will be presented both halves of the argument with."
[2:16 PM] AFK: Is this english?
[2:16 PM] AFK: Also I think you should be arguing for net neutrality not for the middle ground, but whatever.
[3:05 PM] Protected: If I understood it correctly, he only has to make an argument
[3:05 PM] Protected: It doesn't have to be a good one
[3:10 PM] AFK: I'm complaining about his writing, not his argument.
[3:11 PM] Protected: After reading 1 and 2, I feel like your argument is bogus because it is postulated that the growth of ISPs is as important as a fair, open market for over a million other companies
[3:11 PM] Protected: You also say things like "those fees could potentially fuel broadband growth". You are contrasting certainties against wishful thinking!
[3:12 PM] Protected: The writing is for you to complain about, rot
[3:12 PM] Protected: I'm not a native english speaker, though :stuck_out_tongue:
[3:13 PM] Protected: You also argue that consumers could benefit from zero-rating, but you should probably examine this argument on a time scale
[3:13 PM] Protected: If zero-rating promotes monopolies in the way I explained here before, then is it truly good for consumers in the long run?
[3:13 PM] Protected: Most people agree monopolies are bad
[3:15 PM] Protected: Regarding 3: There is no unbiased opposition to net neutrality. There are only critics of net neutrality regulation, who are not critics of net neutrality in itself
[3:15 PM] AFK: Also you fuck up your "for" and "against" net neutrality a few times.
[3:15 PM] AFK: Like you flip them.
[3:15 PM] AFK: Which is really annoying to read.
[3:15 PM] Protected: Any critics of net neutrality not working directly for ISPs just don't know what they're talking about
[3:15 PM] Protected: Experts on the subject matter are fairly unanimous
[3:16 PM] AFK: You're also not consistent in your formatting.
[3:16 PM] AFK: Decide if you're double spacing or single spacing.
[3:16 PM] AFK: Do ONE OF THOSE.
[3:16 PM] AFK: Don't mix them.
[3:17 PM] AFK: Some sentences are double spaced and some aren't and some sentences are a mix.
[3:17 PM] AFK: wtf dude.
[3:17 PM] Protected: You could ask any decent economist if they think there is any merit in the notion that a monopoly is beneficial for the internet as a market, and let me know what they say
[3:18 PM] Protected: (I'm saying this as someone who is very familiar with arguments against net neutrality; I argue it at length every time it comes up)
[3:18 PM] AFK: Washington post is not a reputable source. I don't know that I'd use it.
[3:18 PM] Protected: It's not?
[3:18 PM] AFK: Not sure.
[3:18 PM] AFK: I've heard it's mostly fake news.
[3:19 PM] AFK: Definitely not good for citing anyway.
[3:29 PM] Protected: The washington post article is actually reasonable, I 'd say
[3:30 PM] Protected: The article itself explains the mistake \g is making in his answers
[3:30 PM] Protected: Net neutrality regulation, or FCC-imposed regulation, is not the same as net neutrality
[3:31 PM] Protected: The article was written by someone who is in favor of net neutrality, but wants it to be protected by legislation rather than regulation
[3:31 PM] peppers_: Trump's propaganda is working on AFK if he thinks Washington Post is fake news
[3:35 PM] Protected: I don't have access to the second article but what you say about it seems wrong, \g: "This article argues against net neutrality but rather than outright opposing the rules, it presents the benefits for an unregulated internet"
[3:36 PM] Protected: The sentence at first glance reads like the article isn't against regulation, but then it turns out that it is
[3:40 PM] Protected: I read the third article
[3:41 PM] Protected: You can summarize it as: "net neutrality regulations were only in effect for a short period of time and they were already necessary to stop ISPs from being anticompetitive", then let's contrast that with "people say regulations may be hindering innovation but there is no decent evidence to back that claim!"
[3:42 PM] Protected: At its core, it is explaining both sides of the argument fairly
[3:42 PM] Protected: But the article does not support the notion that both sides have arguments of equal value
[3:43 PM] Protected: "sponsoring content benefits all parties: consumers, ISPs and content providers"
[3:43 PM] Protected: Way to miss the point there. Sure, it will benefits ISPs (monopolies), the content providers ISPs are in bed with (monopolies), and the consumers using those services
[3:43 PM] Protected: It will fuck everyone else, though
[3:44 PM] Protected: This is turning the internet into subscriber cable TV
[3:44 PM] Protected: That's cheap too, and it benefits cable TV stations, and people who want to watch TV
[3:46 PM] Protected: In point 6
[3:47 PM] Protected: "Google, Yahoo and Bing have possessed an ability similar to ISPs to discriminate against and block websites, but never did"
[3:47 PM] Protected: Search engines can't stop you from accessing any website.
[3:47 PM] Protected: They can block a website in their own service, at worst
[3:47 PM] Protected: However, your ISP can completely prevent you from accessing a competing service.
[3:48 PM] Protected: It will literally take you seconds to try a different search engine if you feel like your current one is blocking content
[3:48 PM] Protected: Changing ISPs can take weeks, assuming you're not under contractual obligations, and have a measurable negative impact in your lifestyle.
[3:49 PM] Protected: As for the "but never did" part, I'll just refer you to https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/27/15872354/google-eu-fine-antitrust-shopping
The Verge
Google fined a record €2.4 billion by the EU for manipulating search results
Google has been hit with a record-breaking €2.42 billion ($2.7 billion) fine by the European Union for breaking antitrust law. The decision follows a seven-year investigation into the US company’s...

[3:51 PM] Protected: Regarding your point 7, I don't exactly disagree
[3:51 PM] Protected: There are pigheaded extremists on both sides
[3:52 PM] Protected: But I hope I just destroyed your argument sufficiently for you to understand that one of the sides is just wrong :wink:
[3:52 PM] Protected: I'm not being resistant to opposing arguments here
[3:52 PM] Protected: They are just literally bullshit
[3:52 PM] Protected: Any arguments against net neutrality, including those you have found, are tangential at best
[3:52 PM] Protected: They are arguments against regulation that have little to do with the actual subject at hand
[3:53 PM] Protected: If you feel like I did not sufficiently explain why one of the arguments listed is invalid, feel free to point that out to me and I'll do my best to correct the situation
[3:54 PM] Protected: In a constructive manner :stuck_out_tongue:
[3:54 PM] Protected: Aaand I think that's it
[4:00 PM] AFK: I like everything Prot said.
[4:03 PM] Max: The only partially acceptable argument against net neutrality is that, legally, you are using the ISP's infrastructure they paid for and own to access the content.
[4:04 PM] Max: So, they normally should have the freedom to be dickholes about it.
[4:05 PM] Max: But since they've set themselves up as monopolies, they bring regulation on themselves.
[4:06 PM] Max: Like we said the other day, we wouldn't even be debating thus if everyone had 3-5 competitive ISP choices.
[4:09 PM] Protected: I can agree with that, although let me remind you once again that even in the US, ISPs were subsidized
[4:30 PM] Max: Doesn't matter, really. If the government gives you free money that doesn't make you public property. It just means you have asshole politicians
[4:47 PM] \g: Well
[4:47 PM] \g: I'm trying to bullshit my way through this class
[4:47 PM] \g: I guess I'm not doing a very good job
[4:47 PM] \g: I hate English
[4:47 PM] \g: And it's like Prot said, I just have to present an argument
[4:47 PM] \g: It doesn't necessarily have to be right
[4:49 PM] \g: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[4:52 PM] Protected: \g: That's ok, but you have to be careful about your sources not supporting your argument
[4:52 PM] Protected: I liked your sources; They support mine :stuck_out_tongue:
[4:52 PM] \g:

[4:52 PM] \g: I honestly have no idea wtf he's talking about here
[4:52 PM] Protected: Except they use some tricky language to seem like they don't
[4:52 PM] \g: It all looks exactly the same to me
[4:52 PM] \g: And the formatting isn't important, as this is just a pre-MLA formatted rough draft
[4:52 PM] Protected: (And be careful about not contradicting yourself)
[4:53 PM] \g: I think that's the reason I settled on the middle ground
[4:53 PM] \g: Because it seemed the easiest at the time
[4:53 PM] \g: At first I was all for, but couldn't find any sources that were for it too and I was finding more that were against
[4:53 PM] \g: And then I found that last article, which I really liked
[4:54 PM] \g: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2017/05/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-why-there-is-no-simple-solution/#78439daf5c67 this one
Forbes
The Net Neutrality Debate: Why There Is No Simple Solution
Efforts to regulate the internet to keep it fair and neutral is full of trade-offs, so there is no simple solution. But there is one.

[4:54 PM] \g: And couldn't find a way to work it into my paper without turning the argument neutral
[4:54 PM] \g: So I did
[4:54 PM] \g: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[4:54 PM] Protected: I explained above why that article doesn't support your argument
[4:55 PM] \g: I doubt my professor will look at it as critically as you did
[4:55 PM] Protected: The problem here is that there can't be a neutral point, because there isn't even a real argument
👍2
[4:55 PM] \g: She's an English professor and likely doesn't know the first thing about net neutrality
[4:55 PM] Protected: It's like climate change or holocaust denial
[4:55 PM] Protected: On one side you have an overwhelming weight of expertise and on the other a bunch of quacks :stuck_out_tongue:
[4:55 PM] \g: Who are the experts
[4:56 PM] Protected: Pro net neutrality: Anyone remotely involved with actually designing internet standards and architectures, and nearly all companies doing business on the internet
[4:57 PM] Protected: Engineers? :stuck_out_tongue:
[4:57 PM] \g: "Nearly all companies doing business on the internet"
[4:57 PM] \g: Could easily just be people looking out for their own wellbeing
[4:58 PM] \g: The opposing side sure has lots of those too
[4:58 PM] Protected: Of course they are
[4:58 PM] Protected: The opposing side doesn't
[4:58 PM] Protected: It's really important that you reframe your argument to make the distinction between against neutrality and against regulation
[4:58 PM] Protected: Your sources make that distinction
[4:58 PM] \g: You're only making this fucking project 800x harder for me
[4:58 PM] Protected: Yes :smile:
[4:59 PM] Protected: Next time pick something I don't care about!
[4:59 PM] \g: I'd be better off scrapping the entire thing and taking an F for the class than that
[5:00 PM] Protected: You could easily make your entire argument an explanation of this distinction
[5:00 PM] Protected: It would be a lot easier to find sources
[5:01 PM] Protected: No need to even talk about anything else
[5:01 PM] \g: I'll be fine if I can at least make it look like I know what I'm talking about ffs
[5:01 PM] \g: "easily make your entire argument an explanation of this distinction"
[5:01 PM] \g: Easy for you because you know what the distinction is
[5:01 PM] \g: I don't
[5:01 PM] \g: It's all the same shit to me
[5:02 PM] Protected: I explained to you above how your sources make this distinction; Since you accidentally picked sources that do this, it should be easy to find more
[5:02 PM] \g: Rough draft for this paper was due 2 days ago, so I've not got much choice but to commit to what I've got so far and go through with it
[5:02 PM] Protected: Oh, ok
[5:02 PM] \g: ;d
[5:02 PM] Protected: That's too bad
[5:03 PM] \g: You are a minority of people who can see the distinction so I think I've got that going for me
[5:04 PM] Protected: There is a lot of misinformation going around, and people writing on the subject without putting much effort into it only makes it worse :stuck_out_tongue:
[5:04 PM] Protected: But anyone can see it if they actually pay attention to what they're reading
[5:05 PM] \g: I'm not an expert on the matter and don't claim to be
[5:05 PM] Protected: In your first article, it's very clearly arguing against giving Trump - the executive - the ability to impose regulations on the internet
[5:05 PM] \g: I'm a CS major who works in IT and I've done nothing towards my CS degree yet, so I can't write on a CS topic I don't understand
[5:05 PM] \g: net neutrality didn't seem that difficult to understand at the time, and the fact that there is misinformation going around wasn't painfully obvious
[5:06 PM] Protected: Yes, it's crazy how many people conflate completely unrelated things with it
[5:06 PM] Protected: That happens because the core of the issue is not easy to understand
[5:06 PM] \g: The article mentions Trump specifically, but I wanted to use that first article as an example that it's possible for anyone in Trump's position to impose those regulations
[5:06 PM] Protected: Yes, absolutely
[5:06 PM] Protected: The article is against regulation
[5:06 PM] Protected: But it's in favor of net neutrality
[5:07 PM] Protected: It's in favor of preventing source-based discrimination in some way
[5:07 PM] Protected: It's just that they want that way to be laws; and they criticize democrats for preventing those laws from being put into place in the past; They recommend that such laws should quickly be put into place while there is time
[5:08 PM] \g: Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
[5:08 PM] Protected: Sounds about right!
[5:08 PM] \g: How can you be for net neutrality but against regulation