The Political Discussion Thread

[Womble]

No, that's called seeing the pile of BS before I step in it.
Bullying is the big kid beating the crap out of the little kid because he wouldn't give him his lunch money, or for no reason at all. It requires physical contact. The only thing possible w/out physical contact is namecalling, verbal insults, gossip and such.

Bull crap.

Boycotting or socially ostracizing someone is bullying. Blackmail is bullying. Collective heckling/trolling of a vulnerable individual can be a form of mobbing which is bullying. Maliciously spreading damaging falsehoods about a person can be a form of bullying. All of that can be done through employing digital devices.

[Annoyed]

It's about websites...not VOIP traffic. Comcast can charge Netflix and arm and a leg so that it's own streaming services become more attractive. And guess what? Comcast, in the areas it exist, has very little in the way of competition. Charging websites like this is relatively new, which is why net neutrality is relatively new. But the GOP rather side with modern day versions of trusts and monopolies and oligopolies than with content creators and consumers.

I'm aware of what the current discussion about net neutrality means; Large sites such as CNN, Amazon or whoever can afford to pay premiums to their carriers for prioritized traffic, and on the consumer end, ISP's can throttle or block traffic to sites unless the consumer pays a premium. That kind of thing I oppose, and I said so.

But I'm talking about other reasons for traffic prioritization. If we want true neutrality, carriers should be barred from giving any traffic preferential treatment for any reason whatsoever. The example I use is VOIP traffic. It uses Q.o.S. tags in the packet headers to identify itself as needing priority, and routers honor that request, giving traffic related to Mary's VOIP phone call priority over Joe's http or whatever traffic. The reason for this is that VOIP won't work without this prioritization.

Joe's web surfing is just as important to him as Mary's phone call is to her. What possible ethical reason justifies giving Mary's traffic priority? If you want neutrality, by definition, you have to treat all traffic identical. That VOIP can't work without the preferential treatment is irrelevant. So we haven't and will never have true net neutrality.

If I was writing the law, I would also bar carriers from even looking at the traffic aside from that which is needed to carry it, nor would they be allowed to modify it, which is coming down the pipe.

Carriers are protected from liability for the content by their common carrier status; If you and I discuss murdering jelgate as a public service over the telephone, the telephone company cannot be held liable or prosecuted for the crime public service simply because they carried the traffic.

That same common carrier status should bar them from looking at or modifying the traffic in any way.

Other than the scars it leaves on people for life. The debilitating shame it causes.
Just because you claim to be 'thick skinned' doesn't mean that everyone is. The idea that words cause harm is a very ancient concept. It's...biblical. It's not new age hippie nonsense you seem to think it is.

Ok, let's make an example. Suppose I post something calling you a helmet-wearing, illogical Vulcan who has turned to the Dark Side and forsaken Kolinahr in your never ending quest to become evil.

Now, suppose my evil twin locates you, and beats the stuffing out of you as you head to your car or something, which is what a real bully does to his victim in the schoolyard or wherever.

Are they the same thing? Hardly. The physical assault is the more serious act, by a long shot. They are not the same.

But just as corporations try to inflate the importance of their employees by referring to them as "family", when in fact the are not, as we know the corporation will fire the "family member" if economically needed, people try to inflate the seriousness of namecalling, insults and such by calling it bullying, which is a more serious attack by far.

Like I said, I can see that pile of BS before I step in it.

[Annoyed]

Bull crap.

Boycotting or socially ostracizing someone is bullying. Blackmail is bullying. Collective heckling/trolling of a vulnerable individual can be a form of mobbing which is bullying. Maliciously spreading damaging falsehoods about a person can be a form of bullying. All of that can be done through employing digital devices.

No.
Blackmail is Blackmail, which is illegal in its own right.
Maliciously spreading damaging falsehoods is libel, also already illegal.
And as far as boycotting or socially ostracizing someone, people have the right to choose whom they associate with. If my friends choose not to associate with little Jimmy, that is entirely our right. Or do you deny the freedom of association?

[Gatefan1976]

No.
Blackmail is Blackmail, which is illegal in its own right.
Maliciously spreading damaging falsehoods is libel, also already illegal.
And as far as boycotting or socially ostracizing someone, people have the right to choose whom they associate with. If my friends choose not to associate with little Jimmy, that is entirely our right. Or do you deny the freedom of association?

You are confusing legal terms with specific charges, and as you have no handle on legal terms, I suggest you quit before you look like a total pillock.
(if that's even possible at this stage)

[Annoyed]

You are confusing legal terms with specific charges, and as you have no handle on legal terms, I suggest you quit before you look like a total pillock.
(if that's even possible at this stage)

Insults mean nothing to me, that's the point of my argument. Your resorting to them says a lot about you, however. As does resorting to semantics to refute my argument.

[Gatefan1976]

Insults mean nothing to me, that's the point of my argument. Your resorting to them says a lot about you, however. As does resorting to semantics to refute my argument.

I know you are but what am I?
You are opining on things you have not even a basic knowledge of, let alone enough to form an opinion on. No it's not semantics it's the Fkn LAW, and you have no argument to even bother to refute.
As for language, I called you a pillock, probably something you had to look up, but hardly a serious insult.

Every charge put forward by Womble is bullying, some have specific legal terms and punishments, but that does not change their root cause which is to FORCE them to act in a certain way.

[Annoyed]

As for language, I called you a pillock, probably something you had to look up, but hardly a serious insult.

I didn't even bother looking it up. It's that unimportant to me.

[aretood2]

Insults mean nothing to me, that's the point of my argument. Your resorting to them says a lot about you, however. As does resorting to semantics to refute my argument.

Bullying isn't simply kid A insulting kid B....Cyberbullying isn't that either. You don't seem to know what it is at all.

[Womble]

No.
Blackmail is Blackmail, which is illegal in its own right.
Maliciously spreading damaging falsehoods is libel, also already illegal.
And as far as boycotting or socially ostracizing someone, people have the right to choose whom they associate with. If my friends choose not to associate with little Jimmy, that is entirely our right. Or do you deny the freedom of association?

Freedom of association is an individual thing. Orchestrating someone's boycott is not individual but collective action. It's mobbing.

[LtColCarter]

Bullying isn't simply kid A insulting kid B....Cyberbullying isn't that either. You don't seem to know what it is at all.

Correct...in order for it to be bullying or cyberbullying it needs to be repeated and incessant harmful comments with the intent to harm the recipient. The recipient doesn't have to be a child. Adults can be bullyed/cyberbullyed as well.

I am currently in Facebook "jail" for a comment (one comment mind you) I made on to someone's post. It wasn't a personal attack nor did I use inflamitory language. However, that is the only reason I can think of that I'm in FB jail. However, a friend of mine recieves repeated sexual advances and inappropriate comments from men via FB, and she has never once been protected by the powers that be at FB. Due to comments posted, she even lost her job as a teacher. link to related news article about my friend's firing. Just an FYI...she started being bullyed by a member of a political party she was highly active in, and the guy hated a post she made...so he dug into her past.

So, while I've not been a victim of bullying or cyberbullying...I have seen the affects first hand. Not only was my friend cyberbullied by men on FB...she was also victimized by DISD as well. Thankfully, my friend is now a college professor and she runs a successful art business.

[Annoyed]

Correct...in order for it to be bullying or cyberbullying it needs to be repeated and incessant harmful comments with the intent to harm the recipient. The recipient doesn't have to be a child. Adults can be bullyed/cyberbullyed as well.

I am currently in Facebook "jail" for a comment (one comment mind you) I made on to someone's post. It wasn't a personal attack nor did I use inflamitory language. However, that is the only reason I can think of that I'm in FB jail. However, a friend of mine recieves repeated sexual advances and inappropriate comments from men via FB, and she has never once been protected by the powers that be at FB. Due to comments posted, she even lost her job as a teacher. link to related news article about my friend's firing. Just an FYI...she started being bullyed by a member of a political party she was highly active in, and the guy hated a post she made...so he dug into her past.

So, while I've not been a victim of bullying or cyberbullying...I have seen the affects first hand. Not only was my friend cyberbullied by men on FB...she was also victimized by DISD as well. Thankfully, my friend is now a college professor and she runs a successful art business.

And the people who do the censoring at facebook, like anyone else have biases. Perhaps you may have tripped one of his hot buttons.
It is very difficult, if not impossible to completely remove all bias from a human.

This is one of the strongest reasons I prefer no censorship; let the speaker say whatever he wants and let the listener decide the value of what is said.

[LtColCarter]

And the people who do the censoring at facebook, like anyone else have biases. Perhaps you may have tripped one of his hot buttons.
It is very difficult, if not impossible to completely remove all bias from a human.

This is one of the strongest reasons I prefer no censorship; let the speaker say whatever he wants and let the listener decide the value of what is said.

In my case, yes...I may have tripped some undisclosed "hot button" and got placed in FB jail after over 8 years on the website without as much as a warning.

For my friend, she made a post and one of her extremist Libertarian "friends" got pissed off because he felt it went against the Libertarian platform. So, he dug into her past (of almost 20 years ago) and started posting it on FB. FB didn't do anything to protect her, and it definately fits in the category of cyberbullying.

[Ian-S]

That article is from February, is the case still ongoing or has it been settled now?

Edit: sorry missed the last line.

[thekillman]

This is one of the strongest reasons I prefer no censorship; let the speaker say whatever he wants and let the listener decide the value of what is said.

The internet isn't a one-on-one conversation.

[Annoyed]

The internet isn't a one-on-one conversation.

How does that matter?

Those members of the audience that consider the speaker's words trash can ignore them and those that consider them worthy can pay attention to them, the same as in a one-on-one conversation.