Advertisement
by Calladan » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:45 pm
Machnod wrote:Liam King reads a copy of the proposal, then laughs. "You call this a proposal? What's it gonna do? Force nations to create laws saying more things are unlawful, so they can bypass your rules? You can't just say 'lawful content' and expect everyone to have the same definition all the time. That makes no sense. You have to define these things first. As well as the internet. That definition is too vague. Also, is there really an improvement in social justice? I'm not sure you know what you're doing..." He tosses the now-crumpled proposal into a waste bin and leaves the room.
Qualvista wrote:The Royal World Estate votes in favour of this resolution, although we would have preferred if it were made more explicit that ISPs could not prioritize traffic for certain content providers ahead of others with more limited resources.
by Vakkarland » Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:33 pm
by Vakkarland » Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:35 pm
Normanion wrote:No. No policy is the best policy.
by Shaktirajya » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:50 pm
by The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand » Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:04 pm
by Lord Dominator » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:15 pm
Internet Neutrality Act was passed 13,631 votes to 5,017.
by States of Glory WA Office » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:18 am
The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand wrote:I will soon submit an emergency repeal of this ill-drafted resolution.
by Draconae » Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:17 pm
Machnod wrote:Liam King reads a copy of the proposal, then laughs. "You call this a proposal? What's it gonna do? Force nations to create laws saying more things are unlawful, so they can bypass your rules? You can't just say 'lawful content' and expect everyone to have the same definition all the time. That makes no sense. You have to define these things first. As well as the internet. That definition is too vague. Also, is there really an improvement in social justice? I'm not sure you know what you're doing..." He tosses the now-crumpled proposal into a waste bin and leaves the room.
Qualvista wrote:The Royal World Estate votes in favour of this resolution, although we would have preferred if it were made more explicit that ISPs could not prioritize traffic for certain content providers ahead of others with more limited resources.
Khoratta wrote:Wow. This is a joke. I'm through. Done.
Vakkarland wrote:How would controllin internetnuetrality upcivil rights?
Draconae wrote:Wealthatonia wrote:in what way does this reduce income inquality?
"Let me clear this up. This resolution reduces income inequality by reducing barriers for businesses of all types. Before this, ISPs could charge businesses more for access to their customers faster or data-free. This especially disadvantages small businesses, because they may not have the money to do so. Furthermore, ISPs could charge customers more for access to competitors of other businesses they operate, disadvantaging competition. This allows for more businesses to grow, decreasing income inequality."
The Free and Sovereign State of Thailand wrote:I will soon submit an emergency repeal of this ill-drafted resolution.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement