Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.

Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff

User avatar
JulieYBM
Patreon Supporter
Posts: 16503
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:25 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by JulieYBM » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:47 am

I read an interesting story about Greeley, Colorado voting to explore the option of their own broadband service. Giving a government option for such an essential part of modern daily life sounds like a pretty good idea to explore. A public ISP would could less due to a lack of necessity to pay for shareholders' profits. This lower, faster option would also force private ISPs to have to compete by not gouging as much. Of course, if I'm Comcast what laws are in place to prevent me from successfully bribing local politicians into not competing? Enacting tax-payer funded elections would likely need to happen first.
She/Her💕 💜 💙
progesterone princess, estradiol empress
Lucifer's bimbo daughter

Damned
Not-So-Newbie
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:13 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Damned » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:56 am

Use this site to make yourself heard by congress. It's easy and you can use the script they provide you. (Obviously only for U.S. citizens.)

Was going to use this site to make my voice heard, but I wanted to know how "legit" it is (especially since they are asking me to provide personal info).

Also, does anyone know any other legit sites I can use to make my voice heard? I want to try to use as many avenues as possible to let congress know I'm not interested in Mr. Pai's "improved" web.

User avatar
Doctor.
Banned
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:02 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Doctor. » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:28 am

Kunzait_83 wrote:This can easily be interpreted as "I try to ignore serious real-life issues of consequence because it makes me feel comfortable, safer, and sleep easier at night". Willful ignorance for peace of mind in other words.
It can only if you wanted a punching bag that represents the "I don't care about this issue" boogeyman to write an essay to about the importance of Net Neutrality that people seem to oh so be ignoring. I care; I don't need to act like the world's about the end to care. I get it, you're passionate about the issue. Don't expect me to be as passionate as you about something that doesn't affect me. The EU has its own NN laws that are of more immediate concern to me.
Kunzait_83 wrote:If you're unable to see why such MASSIVE restrictions of free and open connectivity for something as all-encompassing to everyone's daily lives as the internet - a technology who's freedom of use has TREMENDOUSLY improved the lives and educations of COUNTLESS people around the globe - is as big a deal as it gets and are able to dismiss and shrug off people's concerns about this as simply "overreacting", then I'll be blunt as can be here: you're simply not that intelligent or forward thinking of a person.

Point being, unless you're a hermit living alone or with a small commune somewhere deep within the Tibetan mountains, you're not in a fucking safe vacuum where nothing that ever happens outside your doors can ever reach you or impact you. You're a part of a greater civilization. And as a part of a larger society, then there inevitably will come a time when we all, as a collective populace, have a basic social and civic responsibility to get informed, band together, and get the fuck involved when an issue or problem comes down that is a direct threat to our basic day to day way of living, our freedoms, civil liberties, etc.

[and more overreaction]
Now this is ridiculous. Nobody's going to stop you from using the Internet. Nobody's going to block a specific site unless you pay a specific fee. Any company even attempting to do that will be shooting themselves in the foot. And yet that seems to be the mentality of most people in regards to what will happen. What's likely to happen, instead, is that the US will follow the footsteps of what some companies are already doing in Europe under the EU's looser NN laws.

Dr. Casey
OMG CRAZY REGEN
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Dr. Casey » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:44 pm

What's likely to happen, instead, is that the US will follow the footsteps of what some companies are already doing in Europe under the EU's looser NN laws.
What is Europe doing?
Princess Snake avatars courtesy of Kunzait, Chibi Goku avatar from Velasa.

User avatar
Doctor.
Banned
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:02 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Doctor. » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:58 pm

Dr. Casey wrote:
What's likely to happen, instead, is that the US will follow the footsteps of what some companies are already doing in Europe under the EU's looser NN laws.
What is Europe doing?
Zero-rating, which, to my knowledge, the US has dabbled in, but never fully implemented.

User avatar
Luso Saiyan
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:33 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Luso Saiyan » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:04 pm

Cipher wrote:
Luso Saiyan wrote:I didn't misrepresent anything. My point is that the people are (or should be) their own judges and they are free to not support any alleged anti-consumer practices. Legislation should be made and reviewed, but I don't defend increasing regulation, in this instance or in any others that don't affect or try to limit the freedom to provide something better.
Sure, every bit of consumer protection or corporate regulation should be reviewed on its own merits. No arguments there. But you're going to have to convince me what the positive upshot to repealing this particular protection would be.

Rolling it back results in more freedom for the ISP companies, as they can now be selective with site access or speed in accordance with their commercial interests (or more insidiously, even information-related interests), but the only thing it means in terms of the average consumer's freedom is that they're now at the mercy of whatever telecom companies happen to be in their areas. Paying for the internet previously meant you got the whole internet. Now it means you get whatever your telecom company decides you should see. Non-American members might have different experiences with this, but for vast swathes of the country, there's also no more than one choice in terms of local providers.
It's the same in my country. But what should be done is to facilitate the existence of more service providers, in order to increase competition and therefore leave more choice to the consumer. Because again, if some ISPs take advantage of their position against the consumers, they are at risk of losing them to the competition. But that competition should exist. Protecting/facilitating entrepreneurship is what new legislation or revisions should focus on. Service provides (be it internet or anything else) should have the freedom to decide how their service is provided. To me, it's a matter of principle.

Is the current legislation perfect? No. Was it in 2015? No. Should it be revised? Sure. But that's sadly not what the debate is. The debate is being pro or against net neutrality. Not all data is the same. And it's precisely because not all data is the same that cost isn't the same. Knowing that, new smaller companies could start by focusing on providing certain data (in order to be cost effective), and create access in areas where it otherwise wouldn't exist. From there, the services would get better and people would pay accordingly to their needs or existing offers, and more companies would fight for marketshare (which is not done through anti-consumer actions). Not to mention that some people/companies, if given the choice, would be willing to pay for some type of traffic and not pay for another that they don't need, in many cases reducing the overall monthly/annual cost for themselves.

User avatar
Zephyr
I Live Here
Posts: 4021
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Zephyr » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:34 pm

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the idea of The Invisible Hand of the Free Market™ (the mechanism by which anti-consumer business practices are naturally punished and discouraged) operate under the assumption that consumers are all rational and informed agents always acting out of their own rational long-term self-interest?

If so, then the idea itself rests on an incredibly naive and archaic assumption. If not, I'm not seeing how large corporations taking advantage of people is supposed to be discouraged or disadvantageous.

Cipher
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Nagano
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Cipher » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:55 am

Damned wrote:Use this site to make yourself heard by congress. It's easy and you can use the script they provide you. (Obviously only for U.S. citizens.)

Was going to use this site to make my voice heard, but I wanted to know how "legit" it is (especially since they are asking me to provide personal info).

Also, does anyone know any other legit sites I can use to make my voice heard? I want to try to use as many avenues as possible to let congress know I'm not interested in Mr. Pai's "improved" web.
It's one of the major ones organizing action against the repeal, oft-cited by other outlets.

RichardKing2
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by RichardKing2 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:22 am

Zephyr wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the idea of The Invisible Hand of the Free Market™ (the mechanism by which anti-consumer business practices are naturally punished and discouraged) operate under the assumption that consumers are all rational and informed agents always acting out of their own rational long-term self-interest?

If so, then the idea itself rests on an incredibly naive and archaic assumption. If not, I'm not seeing how large corporations taking advantage of people is supposed to be discouraged or disadvantageous.
I'll probably get warned for saying this, but I feel I need to say this anyway. If you don't see how large corporations taking advantage of citizens of the USA is supposed to be discouraged or "Bad", then you are a complete and utter fool. do I need to go indepth why, or did you have some larger point you were trying to make? Because if you are, nows the best time.

User avatar
Luso Saiyan
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:33 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Luso Saiyan » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:02 am

Zephyr wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the idea of The Invisible Hand of the Free Market™ (the mechanism by which anti-consumer business practices are naturally punished and discouraged) operate under the assumption that consumers are all rational and informed agents always acting out of their own rational long-term self-interest?
And they aren't? When is any consumer not acting on their own self interest? People buy a service or a product because they want or need it. And other people provide said product or service because there is demand for it. If a company acts against the consumer, they are putting their reputation and revenue on the line (no matter how much leeway they have against the competition).

What's preventing consumers to be informed and rational? If someone does act/is rational, that's their responsibility. The free market is about freedom of voluntary transactions between individuals, none of which is responsible for each other's rationality or knowledge. Their only obligation to each other is to uphold their end of the bargain.

User avatar
Zephyr
I Live Here
Posts: 4021
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Zephyr » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:47 pm

RichardKing2 wrote:If you don't see how large corporations taking advantage of citizens of the USA is supposed to be discouraged or "Bad", then you are a complete and utter fool.
I'm not implying that large corporations taking advantage of people is moral, no. Quite the contrary.
Luso Saiyan wrote:And they aren't? When is any consumer not acting on their own self interest? People buy a service or a product because they want or need it. And other people provide said product or service because there is demand for it. If a company acts against the consumer, they are putting their reputation and revenue on the line (no matter how much leeway they have against the competition).

What's preventing consumers to be informed and rational? If someone does act/is rational, that's their responsibility. The free market is about freedom of voluntary transactions between individuals, none of which is responsible for each other's rationality or knowledge. Their only obligation to each other is to uphold their end of the bargain.
No, they aren't. A consumer is not acting out of their own long-term self-interest when they spend money they need on products that they don't need. And people do this. All the time. There is an art and a craft to convincing people that they need things that they do not need. Yes, if a company acts against the consumer, they are putting their reputation and revenue on the line. However, if the consumer doesn't see it that way, then no harm comes from it. Acting very obviously against the consumer would be a disaster, but if the disadvantages to the consumer are subtle and obfuscated by all of the purported benefits, then said disadvantages are much less noticeable. Human beings are emotional creatures, who often act out of impulse and emotion. Companies use advertisements to take full advantage of this in order to maximize profit. They are in the business of manufacturing desire, of selling the idea that these products aren't really mere products, they're experiences. If your primary goal was to make more money, would you not?

Becoming informed takes time and effort. Oftentimes, people don't have the time to do research. Oftentimes, people don't have the energy to do research. Oftentimes, people aren't raised to place much value on being thoroughly informed on things. It's nice to sit back and say "well I'm not responsible for anyone else thinking rationally or being informed", but if people aren't informed and acting out of reason, then can the exchange really be called "free"? If there's not a level intellectual playing field, then it's stacked in favor of the informed and the calculating, and oftentimes those are the ones selling the products in the first place. Again, you can just say "bah, that's their problem for falling for it" all you want, but if you do that, your free market utopia is no closer to actually existing. If you want a real free market, then you have a duty to help inform people and to help foster their reasoning skills. Otherwise, all of your rational purchasing choices, all of the voting with your wallet that you do, is going to be drowned out and made minuscule next to the bamboozled masses.

The idea of a purely rational free market is really nice on paper. Unfortunately, it hinges on a really starry-eyed conception of the human mind. Every single person who champions their faith in the power of the invisible hand comes across like they've never heard of Edward Bernays, or his contributions to advertisement and public relations. Nephew of Sigmund Freud, his writings and techniques were used by Nazi Germany for their propaganda campaign to dehumanize the Jewish population, and they are to this day being used by companies and politicians. And the techniques work, otherwise they wouldn't still be in use. Look him up.

User avatar
Luso Saiyan
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:33 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Luso Saiyan » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:05 pm

Zephyr wrote:No, they aren't. A consumer is not acting out of their own long-term self-interest when they spend money they need on products that they don't need. And people do this. All the time.
Want or need. And who are you to say that people don't want or need whatever they pay for willingly? They do, hence why they pay money for it. Nobody is pointing them a gun and forcing them to. It's voluntary. If they regret it later or change their mind is their problem and responsibility.
Zephyr wrote:There is an art and a craft to convincing people that they need things that they do not need.
And each individual has the freedom and responsibility to judge and agree or disagree with whatever convincing information they receive, and act accordingly.
Zephyr wrote:Yes, if a company acts against the consumer, they are putting their reputation and revenue on the line. However, if the consumer doesn't see it that way, then no harm comes from it.
Yes, if the consumers in general see it that way. Which in the case of anti-consumer actions, they don't. And those that do are doing so freely.
Zephyr wrote:Acting very obviously against the consumer would be a disaster, but if the disadvantages to the consumer are subtle and obfuscated by all of the purported benefits, then said disadvantages are much less noticeable.
Considering the advantages and disadvantages is a perfect example of rational behaviour and acting in an informed manner, which you were claiming people don't always have or do.
Zephyr wrote:Human beings are emotional creatures, who often act out of impulse and emotion.
Sorry, but people are responsible for their actions. That's the price of freedom. If they let emotions cloud their judgement and act on them it's their problem. We are talking about adults here.

User avatar
Zephyr
I Live Here
Posts: 4021
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Zephyr » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:20 am

Sorry for the long-ass post, there was a lot to unpack, address, clarify, present, and elaborate on.
Luso Saiyan wrote:
Zephyr wrote:Acting very obviously against the consumer would be a disaster, but if the disadvantages to the consumer are subtle and obfuscated by all of the purported benefits, then said disadvantages are much less noticeable.
Considering the advantages and disadvantages is a perfect example of rational behaviour and acting in an informed manner, which you were claiming people don't always have or do.
Correct, I'm claiming that there are times when individual people do not behave rationally (and that claim isn't intended or able to challenge the idea that there are also times when individual people do behave rationally), that there are conditions under which we are less likely to behave rationally, and that those times and conditions can be, and have been, studied and replicated by those who understand them better than most. And as such, the invisible hand of the free market does not, in reality, have the incredible magic wand powers that it does on paper. At least not when applied to existing evolutionary and historical context in which we collectively sit. Maybe if we could start from scratch with an intellectually-level foundational population. Like, if at the evolutionary dawn of humanity, everyone already read and understood the works and systems of John Locke and Immanuel Kant.

This isn't to suggest that we're not rationalizing. We definitely rationalize. We're all (barring extreme circumstances) equipped to weigh right against wrong, good against bad, advantageous against disadvantageous; we're all equipped to compare and contrast, to conflate and demarcate. But that potentiality doesn't guarantee us all the opportunity to substantially cultivate that skill (to strengthen that muscle), to derive logical conclusions from the combined truth value of any given number of premises, or to act in accordance with the conclusions we reach by testing said skill (or flexing said muscle).

If you look at all of the actions that someone takes throughout their life, not all of them are going to be based on a logically valid or sound argument. As an organism part of a shared genetic lineage, mutated over eons, we have not yet evolved to behave in complete accordance with pure reason. Our ability to reason, to act in accordance with appeals to logos, hinges on our ability to resist appeals to ethos and pathos, appeals that resonate strongly within the human organism. If our grasp of logic is weak and we're confronted with a particularly strong appeal to emotion or authority, the fact that we technically have autonomy is no longer the salient point; the salient point is that some of us are at a disadvantage, and others of us are capitalizing on it. The will of one is more constrained than that of another, and the other is taking advantage of that more limited pool of logical decisions that the one has.

Yes, everyone has autonomy, meaning that they make their own decisions. They pull the trigger. Their choices are not blocked by force. The level of freedom our will has (how much free will we have) is diametrically opposed to the amount of internal and external constraints on our decision making processes that the context of our lives comprise. These constraints coerce, or incline, us to be more likely to make certain decisions over others. Life, and the context in which it unfolds, is different for every single individual. We are all subject to different constraints, to different kinds of coercion. We are given different choices to make, and as such we pick different answers. We can't deride people for not choosing an answer they weren't presented with as an option. Likewise, we can't just bury our heads in the sand and hope that enough people will choose the right answer, when a lot of them probably don't see it as an available answer.

Even if we had equal access to and inclination to access training in reasoning, our ability to resist these appeals to emotion and authority in the moment itself is still strongly affected by the overall emotional state we are in when we are confronted with them. When we're in a really bad mood, or sometimes overly excited, we're not in the best position to reason clearly about things, because our skill level will be temporarily lowered, our muscle will temporarily feel weak; pathos and ethos will be more appealing and convenient. Sometimes, we're just acting and moving too fast to really think things through; recall any time you've been really excited or enraged or depressed or terrified. Sometimes we're too caught up in the rush, or too bothered by something else, to care. Sometimes, we're more impressionable or suggestible than normal.

When we can't or don't resist these appeals, we often make positive associations with things that do not benefit us or things that are, in the long term, detrimental to our rational self-interest. Advertisements nowadays are, and for a long time now have been, carefully crafted, in accordance with the conclusions derived from market research, to maximize the association between a company's products (or politicians/policies) and a good mood, feeling, and/or environment within the minds of as many potential consumers (or voters) as possible. Take a look at any advertisement, we're literally surrounded by them. When we're surrounded by something, we pay less conscious, surface-level attention to it. It all blurs together. It can become hypnotic (not in the "now do literally as I command" sense, but more so in the "greater state of suggestibility" sense).

It doesn't matter if, after a potentially flawless appeal to logos, the product (or the politician or policy) wouldn't hold up as something smart to support; if the potential appeal to logos is sabotaged, or utterly subverted, by stronger appeals to ethos or pathos, then reason isn't pure and thus doesn't naturally correct things as it should. The conditions in which reason doesn't naturally correct things as it should can be studied, understood, replicated, and institutionalized. These conditions largely (but, again, not entirely) already have been institutionalized.

The ones who benefit from this institutionalization are those most willing and able to take advantage of these conditions. Edward Bernays believed that such an institutionalization was necessary for society to function smoothly (which is why he essentially wrote instruction manuals for it), and indeed such has given rise to many advancements and luxuries. As a result, many people have been able to become disproportionately wealthy while focusing their wealth toward certain goals, many of such to the benefit of most everyone else. Creating infrastructure, donating to charities, keeping people distracted from their problems so that they can carry on, etc.

Sadly, just because they can and do perform good actions with their disproportionate power, nothing's precluding their abuse of that disproportionate power. Having an informed and rational population and an uninformed and irrational population within the same sphere creates a large power disparity. Disproportionate power corrupts, and corruption fosters abuse.

The reduction of abuse thus necessitates the reduction of corruption, and thus a leveling of the intellectual playing field. Increasing the likelihood that individuals will flex those intellectual muscles, to foster and cultivate those intellectual skills and abilities. Because without that playing field being level, the corrective ability of reason is severely gimped.
Luso Saiyan wrote:
Zephyr wrote:No, they aren't. A consumer is not acting out of their own long-term self-interest when they spend money they need on products that they don't need. And people do this. All the time.
Want or need. And who are you to say that people don't want or need whatever they pay for willingly? They do, hence why they pay money for it. Nobody is pointing them a gun and forcing them to. It's voluntary. If they regret it later or change their mind is their problem and responsibility.
What you're illustrating the lack of is force. What I'm illustrating the presence of is coercion. The lack of the former does not entail the lack of the latter. This is very common misconception. No, a gun isn't to their head, and I'm not arguing that. The point is that the product can be effectively presented in a way that appeals to the consumer's short term interests and wants, while carefully obfuscating and skirting around possible detriments to their long term interests and wants. Ever see one of those drug commercials where the person using it just has it going on now, and all of the shitty side effects are quickly listed at the very end, right before being reminded that dude in the ad has a fucking awesome life?

Also, physiological responses can be trained to be stimulated. Images of delicious food, sounds of cooking, and smells can all come together to make us crave something, increasing the likelihood that we're going to spend money on it, even if spending money on it at that time is a very bad idea in the long term. No, there's not a gun to their head, but there doesn't need to be. Pavlov didn't have to stick a gun to his dogs' heads, did he?

If one has more power than another, then they have greater means of preserving that power than the other has of dismantling that power. With such a disparity in power going on for so long, the mechanisms are already heavily in-place to keep the less powerful where they are. They have more resources to spare, after all. And don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any of this as a defeatist. On the contrary, I do think that we can turn the tide, eventually. However, I think if we were to leave it entirely to the free market, in the present context and playing field, it would take far too long, be far too ineffectual, and eventually lose out. If people aren't going to always find their way to the necessary tool for dismantling the power disparity, then it must be given to them. If the power disparity, the disparity in intellectual disparity, and the disparity in the freedom of wills, are things one wishes to see diminish, so as to pave the way for an actual legitimate free market guided by reason, then it must be given to them. "But it's not a right" is not going to cut it as a response to this, since I'm not suggesting that it needs necessarily be a right. Instead, I would consider it essential training, that one isn't yet guaranteed to receive, for the performance of an essential duty.
Luso Saiyan wrote:
Zephyr wrote:There is an art and a craft to convincing people that they need things that they do not need.
And each individual has the freedom and responsibility to judge and agree or disagree with whatever convincing information they receive, and act accordingly.
I'm arguing that stifling another's ability to engage in this process with maximal clarity and success would be an impediment on freedom and duty. Are you arguing that it wouldn't be, or that it simply isn't a thing that happens?
Luso Saiyan wrote:
Zephyr wrote:Yes, if a company acts against the consumer, they are putting their reputation and revenue on the line. However, if the consumer doesn't see it that way, then no harm comes from it.
Yes, if the consumers in general see it that way. Which in the case of anti-consumer actions, they don't. And those that do are doing so freely.
This position doesn't account for people who aren't inclined to do thorough research on complex issues, who were never given the opportunity to be educated, informed, and trained on complex reasoning, who the importance of being informed was never fully grasped by.

People don't just pick their disposition, circumstances, opportunities, natural talents, parents' economic power, and so on out of a box in some magical vacuum world of purely rational free will prior to their birth. The metaphysics of your entire position, at least insofar as it is being presented here and is typically presented, hinges on ludicrous fantasy. It rests on the inane suggestion that the laws of cause and effect aren't a thing, or that our brains somehow exist removed from them. If our circumstances influence our decision making process (and they do), and we all have different circumstances, then our decision making processes (our unique individual engagement with the exercise of reasoning, the flexing of that muscle) aren't all equal and identical, and thus holding them all to the same uniform standard as if they all had identical means and ends and starting points makes no sense. It's not fair or reasonable. You can't hold irrational people accountable for making irrational decisions in a system where circumstances beyond their control stacked the deck in favor of them being more likely to make more irrational decisions than others.

It also, still, doesn't account for the ability to carefully craft an advertisement or message to obfuscate logical downsides by overwhelming the consumer with both logical upsides and emotionally evocative upsides. A game of pure logic, of comparing upsides to downsides, is an incredibly comforting fantasy to imagine and cling to. Unfortunately, there are incredibly effective emotional appeals everywhere, too. If two people come up with the same list of pros and cons, but one of them also encounters a strong emotional appeal, did they make that decision as freely as the one who didn't also encounter the additional emotional appeal? I don't see how you can say they did. And if you can't, then saying "well everyone's got free well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" isn't really a satisfactory response, because it implies that everyone is subject to identical constraints when they're obviously not.
Luso Saiyan wrote:
Zephyr wrote:Human beings are emotional creatures, who often act out of impulse and emotion.
Sorry, but people are responsible for their actions. That's the price of freedom. If they let emotions cloud their judgement and act on them it's their problem. We are talking about adults here.
Yes. Adult human organisms with emotions, values, biases, impulses, fears, natural talents, and no shortage of external constraints. "Letting emotions cloud their judgment" isn't something they decide to do after engaging in pure and free and unconstrained reason in magical vacuum land. Sadly, no, we can't actually step behind John Rawls' veil of ignorance.

"We are the architects of our destiny" is an important existential and psychologically-healthy belief to hold, for motivating oneself, in the first person. It is not, however, a particularly helpful or intellectually-honest belief when it comes to assessing the actions of others. You have to completely ignore a vast number of incredibly relevant explanatory factors in order to cling to it this strongly.

---

Here's the tl;dr

A lot of your argument seems to entail "well it's their fault if they're dumb!". Not only is it really not (and you have to pretend that "cause and effect" some spooky myth to assert otherwise), but that's also a complete deflection from the actual point: that they are dumb in the first place. Fuck whose fault the problem is, the problem is there. It's enormous. It's staring us in the face. And it completely tramples on any and all "but the sacred free market will just magic the bad stuff gone!" flavored cop-outs.

If you're going to turn out the lights and say "it's alright, we have a flashlight!" then you better make damn sure there are batteries in it. The batteries are missing. Help.

User avatar
Bardo117
OMG CRAZY REGEN
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Bardo117 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:47 pm

Pipe dream.
El Conejo Malo

Son_Gohan
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1121
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:14 pm

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Son_Gohan » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:25 am

That's assuming it was already in a state of "neutrality"; the term is semantically deceptive. Big, powerful corporations still exploited, censored and operated on the net monopolistically even with these so-called rules in place. Keeping something artifically suppressed has not shown historically to lead to good outcomes in the long run. It arrests development, which can cause things to progress even worse than they already are. Returning it to the way it was before brings balance to the net in a way that is more natural. That's not saying there won't be businesses and people looking to take advantage for themselves, but that's always going to be there in any aspect of life; it is to be expected and counteracted accordingly. Competition is a natural part of the process; efforts to stop it entirely results in extreme reactions, sometimes even the opposite of what was originally intended.

A lot of people are overreacting. Everything has a natural tendency to return to a state of balance if allowed to. Just as there are forces that try to keep things unstable for its own benefit, there will be the opposite acting as agents of stability. So long as they're able to freely operate in a system, everything should work out in the end.

User avatar
omaro34
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1952
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by omaro34 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:54 pm

This is serious and it is a naive viewpoint to think that since you don't live in the States it will never effect you.

Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and T mobile just to name a few during the FCC's vote to end net neutrality made several statements reassuring consumers that nothing will change if net neutrality dies.

Now that it's actually gone, they are all very careful not to make future reassurances to consumers, and that's a bad sign. It's no surprise because now they are legally allowed to gauge their customers, but it's funny how quickly they change their tune.

Corporations getting richer, the elite benefitting from hardworking citizens is a theme and the death of net neutrality is no different.

Power, control, greed, and dominance have plagued society since the dawn of time, and it will continue to be relevant long after our lifetimes.
"Kami is the Morgan Freeman of Dragonball Z"

Check out my Piccolo page: https://www.facebook.com/PiccoloTheSuperNamek/?ref=hl

User avatar
majinwarman
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:50 pm
Location: Freeza Planet 1

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by majinwarman » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:13 am

omaro34 wrote:This is serious and it is a naive viewpoint to think that since you don't live in the States it will never effect you.

Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and T mobile just to name a few during the FCC's vote to end net neutrality made several statements reassuring consumers that nothing will change if net neutrality dies.

Now that it's actually gone, they are all very careful not to make future reassurances to consumers, and that's a bad sign. It's no surprise because now they are legally allowed to gauge their customers, but it's funny how quickly they change their tune.

Corporations getting richer, the elite benefitting from hardworking citizens is a theme and the death of net neutrality is no different.

Power, control, greed, and dominance have plagued society since the dawn of time, and it will continue to be relevant long after our lifetimes.
This is such sad truth being spoken here. I just have hope that there will be change in future about the rich gaining more power in the world. Such a sad time it is to see and watch.
Majinwarman
So I'm 'evil', huh? Interesting."
A world without Dragon Ball is just meh.

User avatar
Doctor.
Banned
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:02 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

Post by Doctor. » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:52 am

omaro34 wrote:This is serious and it is a naive viewpoint to think that since you don't live in the States it will never effect you.
It probably won't. The EU usually isn't as backward as the US.

Post Reply