\g - Last Tuesday at 2:00 PM
@Protected  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyrguaUn5pUZT0ALS-ecKzqyz3TEjLCe4skFOnPOh2A/edit?usp=sharing read this dumb thing I did
AFK - Last Tuesday at 2:14 PM
You should elaborate in the first prompt.
It's not directly tied to your field of work, but it relates to everyone.
Give just one example of how it effects you in your field of work since you are also part of that body.
Also this doesn't sound right.
" Because I am arguing for the middle ground, each of my key points will be presented both halves of the argument with."
Is this english?
Also I think you should be arguing for net neutrality not for the middle ground, but whatever.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:05 PM
If I understood it correctly, he only has to make an argument
It doesn't have to be a good one
AFK - Last Tuesday at 3:10 PM
I'm complaining about his writing, not his argument.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:11 PM
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
You also say things like "those fees could potentially fuel broadband growth". You are contrasting certainties against wishful thinking!
The writing is for you to complain about, rot
I'm not a native english speaker, though :stuck_out_tongue:
You also argue that consumers could benefit from zero-rating, but you should probably examine this argument on a time scale
If zero-rating promotes monopolies in the way I explained here before, then is it truly good for consumers in the long run?
Most people agree monopolies are bad
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
AFK - Last Tuesday at 3:15 PM
Also you fuck up your "for" and "against" net neutrality a few times.
Like you flip them.
Which is really annoying to read.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:15 PM
Any critics of net neutrality not working directly for ISPs just don't know what they're talking about
Experts on the subject matter are fairly unanimous
AFK - Last Tuesday at 3:16 PM
You're also not consistent in your formatting.
Decide if you're double spacing or single spacing.
Do ONE OF THOSE.
Don't mix them.
Some sentences are double spaced and some aren't and some sentences are a mix.
wtf dude.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:17 PM
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
(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)
AFK - Last Tuesday at 3:18 PM
Washington post is not a reputable source. I don't know that I'd use it.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:18 PM
It's not?
AFK - Last Tuesday at 3:18 PM
Not sure.
I've heard it's mostly fake news.
Definitely not good for citing anyway.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:29 PM
The washington post article is actually reasonable, I 'd say
The article itself explains the mistake \g is making in his answers
Net neutrality regulation, or FCC-imposed regulation, is not the same as net neutrality
The article was written by someone who is in favor of net neutrality, but wants it to be protected by legislation rather than regulation
peppers_ - Last Tuesday at 3:31 PM
Trump's propaganda is working on AFK if he thinks Washington Post is fake news
Protected - Last Tuesday at 3:35 PM
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"
The sentence at first glance reads like the article isn't against regulation, but then it turns out that it is
I read the third article
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!"
At its core, it is explaining both sides of the argument fairly
But the article does not support the notion that both sides have arguments of equal value
"sponsoring content benefits all parties: consumers, ISPs and content providers"
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
It will fuck everyone else, though
This is turning the internet into subscriber cable TV
That's cheap too, and it benefits cable TV stations, and people who want to watch TV
In point 6
"Google, Yahoo and Bing have possessed an ability similar to ISPs to discriminate against and block websites, but never did"
Search engines can't stop you from accessing any website.
They can block a website in their own service, at worst
However, your ISP can completely prevent you from accessing a competing service.
It will literally take you seconds to try a different search engine if you feel like your current one is blocking content
Changing ISPs can take weeks, assuming you're not under contractual obligations, and have a measurable negative impact in your lifestyle.
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...

Regarding your point 7, I don't exactly disagree
There are pigheaded extremists on both sides
But I hope I just destroyed your argument sufficiently for you to understand that one of the sides is just wrong :wink:
I'm not being resistant to opposing arguments here
They are just literally bullshit
Any arguments against net neutrality, including those you have found, are tangential at best
They are arguments against regulation that have little to do with the actual subject at hand
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
In a constructive manner :stuck_out_tongue:
Aaand I think that's it
AFK - Last Tuesday at 4:00 PM
I like everything Prot said.
Max - Last Tuesday at 4:03 PM
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.
So, they normally should have the freedom to be dickholes about it.
But since they've set themselves up as monopolies, they bring regulation on themselves.
Like we said the other day, we wouldn't even be debating thus if everyone had 3-5 competitive ISP choices.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:09 PM
I can agree with that, although let me remind you once again that even in the US, ISPs were subsidized
Max - Last Tuesday at 4:30 PM
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
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:47 PM
Well
I'm trying to bullshit my way through this class
I guess I'm not doing a very good job
I hate English
And it's like Prot said, I just have to present an argument
It doesn't necessarily have to be right
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:52 PM
\g: That's ok, but you have to be careful about your sources not supporting your argument
I liked your sources; They support mine :stuck_out_tongue:
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:52 PM

I honestly have no idea wtf he's talking about here
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:52 PM
Except they use some tricky language to seem like they don't
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:52 PM
It all looks exactly the same to me
And the formatting isn't important, as this is just a pre-MLA formatted rough draft
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:52 PM
(And be careful about not contradicting yourself)
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:53 PM
I think that's the reason I settled on the middle ground
Because it seemed the easiest at the time
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
And then I found that last article, which I really liked
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.

And couldn't find a way to work it into my paper without turning the argument neutral
So I did
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:54 PM
I explained above why that article doesn't support your argument
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:55 PM
I doubt my professor will look at it as critically as you did
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:55 PM
The problem here is that there can't be a neutral point, because there isn't even a real argument
👍2
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:55 PM
She's an English professor and likely doesn't know the first thing about net neutrality
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:55 PM
It's like climate change or holocaust denial
On one side you have an overwhelming weight of expertise and on the other a bunch of quacks :stuck_out_tongue:
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:55 PM
Who are the experts
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:56 PM
Pro net neutrality: Anyone remotely involved with actually designing internet standards and architectures, and nearly all companies doing business on the internet
Engineers? :stuck_out_tongue:
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:57 PM
"Nearly all companies doing business on the internet"
Could easily just be people looking out for their own wellbeing
The opposing side sure has lots of those too
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:58 PM
Of course they are
The opposing side doesn't
It's really important that you reframe your argument to make the distinction between against neutrality and against regulation
Your sources make that distinction
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:58 PM
You're only making this fucking project 800x harder for me
Protected - Last Tuesday at 4:58 PM
Yes :smile:
Next time pick something I don't care about!
\g - Last Tuesday at 4:59 PM
I'd be better off scrapping the entire thing and taking an F for the class than that
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:00 PM
You could easily make your entire argument an explanation of this distinction
It would be a lot easier to find sources
No need to even talk about anything else
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:01 PM
I'll be fine if I can at least make it look like I know what I'm talking about ffs
"easily make your entire argument an explanation of this distinction"
Easy for you because you know what the distinction is
I don't
It's all the same shit to me
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:02 PM
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
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:02 PM
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
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:02 PM
Oh, ok
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:02 PM
;d
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:02 PM
That's too bad
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:03 PM
You are a minority of people who can see the distinction so I think I've got that going for me
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:04 PM
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:
But anyone can see it if they actually pay attention to what they're reading
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:05 PM
I'm not an expert on the matter and don't claim to be
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:05 PM
In your first article, it's very clearly arguing against giving Trump - the executive - the ability to impose regulations on the internet
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:05 PM
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
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
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:06 PM
Yes, it's crazy how many people conflate completely unrelated things with it
That happens because the core of the issue is not easy to understand
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:06 PM
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
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:06 PM
Yes, absolutely
The article is against regulation
But it's in favor of net neutrality
It's in favor of preventing source-based discrimination in some way
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
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:08 PM
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.
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:08 PM
Sounds about right!
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:08 PM
How can you be for net neutrality but against regulation
Who can enforce the rules of net neutrality
If not the people regulating the internet
Should everyone just come to an agreement and pinky swear not to discriminate?
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:08 PM
Some people say: Market forces
Some people say just that thing you said
Some people, like the writer of your first source, say: Congress (legislators)
Legislation is not the same as executive (FCC) regulation
And then some people are perfectly happy with regulation
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:10 PM
Holy shit I'm going to fail this class
I'm going to go gather my thoughts on the toilet
(i have to poop)
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:11 PM
lol
If you're out of time, don't worry about any of this
I only continued the conversation because you did, and because I see as the contribution I provide towards this important issue the duty to clear up misunderstanding whenever possible
\g - Last Tuesday at 5:13 PM
Well
The problem is going in knowing that everything I'm writing is wrong
That actually makes it a bit harder to bullshit
The bullshitting I was doing was just throwing darts at a dart board, hoping to hit that bullseye
But now that that it's been  confirmed that I've been missing the dart board completely...
throws his hands in the air
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:21 PM
Just because it's a lie, doesn't mean you can't do it convincingly
And the fact that your sources do not put both sides of the argument on an equal footing and that I say the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on doesn't mean you can't explore the concept of a middle ground
A middle ground between what and what, though, is important
I think your work reads better if you're talking about net neutrality regulation everywhere you're talking about net neutrality
You could talk about how it currently works in european countries like mine, where enforcement is provided by a combination of EU-level legislation and national-level regulation
Max - Last Tuesday at 5:32 PM
Well, all the governments are doing a pretty good job mucking up the internet all on their own over there
Protected - Last Tuesday at 5:37 PM
When I was a young boy, before I even met you
I was already well aware of how our local regulator (ANACOM) wasn't worth shit
Since then, my opinion of them only got worse
Max - Last Tuesday at 5:50 PM
I wish I had Regulators I could even feel bad about.
Up till a few years ago no one really did anything about the ISPs here. They just ran wild.