The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Rip]

Because typing in the URL is how people find things on the internet. So now we know ISGs secret, he knows all the URLs.

To answer your question move, sign up for AOL online dialup, or as my community did build a community fiber network and tell the mega ISPs to pound sand.

What difference does it make if there is nothing to find?

Not to mention the ISP's are already lobbying to make community fiber illegal. What makes you think they are going to stop at Net Neutrality?

Unsuccessfully. AT&T/BellSouth did everything they could to stop ours but the voters showed them who makes the decisions. I will be more concerned about neutral internet access when people have neutral access to what ISP they use. We have been stifling competition for telcom customers for decades, not sure why it only becomes a problem now.

[Rip]

The idea is to spread common activity across as many different segments as possible. The service providers will love it, because it's just like the familiar old cable TV packages that they miss so much.

Sure, but what happens when, say, the UK offers some types of services or products that are direct competition with your ISP's products and/or services? If the UK plays ball and drops Net Neutrality too, then ISP's will either outlaw each other or scratch each others' backs.

If foreign ISP's don't play ball, what happens?

ISPs don't control the internet, only local access to it and they shouldn't have anywhere near the control they have over that.

[Remus West]

I fear puppet elections such as Russia has and an unending Trump. I fear even more a closed Canadian border when that happens. Alright, that last was just meant as humor but it is a true fear.

I don't think he'll find it in anyone's power to overturn the Constitution, no matter how many people he puts in place as judges. They aren't his people, and don't share his specific disregard for our nation in order to reap maximum profits.

Everything we have seen from the republican party convinces you of this how? Unlimited gerrymandering convinces you of this how? I'm not saying it is likely or going to happen next year but the fact that it is even worth discussing is frightening. You say one leg has collapsed. I'd say at least two have given the behavior of the republican controlled Congress the past 8 years.

[GreenGoo]

Unsuccessfully. AT&T/BellSouth did everything they could to stop ours but the voters showed them who makes the decisions. I will be more concerned about neutral internet access when people have neutral access to what ISP they use. We have been stifling competition for telcom customers for decades, not sure why it only becomes a problem now.

Sure. Net Neutrality was a thing until this year too.

We're on the same side of the equation as far as competition in the ISP market goes. As with El Guapo, things change when there is competition. There are more than a few places in Canada that experienced a HUGE drop in consumer costs with a corresponding HUGE gain in services when the main ISP's were forced to lease usage of their lines to other companies.

I myself pay less than 1/2 the price for more service than my neighbours pay the former monopolies. And that's with patchwork fixes to the market.

One of the problems with true competition is that we can't expect all companies to provide their own last mile, so someone has to maintain that infrastructure while EVERYONE gets to use it.

[Max Peck]

The idea is to spread common activity across as many different segments as possible. The service providers will love it, because it's just like the familiar old cable TV packages that they miss so much.

Sure, but what happens when, say, the UK offers some types of services or products that are direct competition with your ISP's products and/or services? If the UK plays ball and drops Net Neutrality too, then ISP's will either outlaw each other or scratch each others' backs.

If foreign ISP's don't play ball, what happens?

Nobody needs to play ball per se, although it's possible that some content providers may pay ISPs in order to be exempt from throttling (i.e. be included in the base service rather than an add-on package). The non-neutral ISP is going to be conducting deep packet analysis of all their customer's traffic (Privacy? What's that?) and dynamically shaping their bandwidth to conform with their individual service package, and doing it at the end customer's access point rather than at the point of origin or on the backbones.

[Trent Steel]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/935908165945786369

I just... can't... anymore...

Someone wake me when this is over.

[GreenGoo]

ISPs don't control the internet, only local access to it and they shouldn't have anywhere near the control they have over that.

Wait, so ISP's won't restrict access (or just throttle) to segments of the 'net based on maximum profitability if given the chance despite evidence that they absolutely will and have already attempted baby steps in this direction?

Phew, that's a relief.

[GreenGoo]

Nobody needs to play ball per se, although it's possible that some content providers may pay ISPs in order to be exempt from throttling (i.e. be included in the base service rather than an add-on package). The non-neutral ISP is going to be conducting deep packet analysis of all their customer's traffic (Privacy? What's that?) and dynamically shaping their bandwidth to conform with their individual service package, and doing it at the end customer's access point rather than at the point of origin or on the backbones.

I'm confused. You've just outlined the problems we expect to see once Net Neutrality drops for good. The difference between what you've said and what I've said is that you're talking throttling (of which we've already seen evidence) whereas I'm saying why bother throttling when you can simply not provide access to parts of the net that negatively impact an ISP's profitability.

I don't think we're saying different things.

[Rip]

ISPs don't control the internet, only local access to it and they shouldn't have anywhere near the control they have over that.

Wait, so ISP's won't restrict access (or just throttle) to segments of the 'net based on maximum profitability if given the chance despite evidence that they absolutely will and have already attempted baby steps in this direction?

Phew, that's a relief.

ISPs only have the ability to restrict access if the community allows it. Why not construct your own last miles and keep the profit from that in the community instead of letting the ISPs run off with it. Just the existence of our fiber loop dropped typical internet access fees around here in half even before they had more than a handful of customers on it.

[Remus West]

ISPs don't control the internet, only local access to it and they shouldn't have anywhere near the control they have over that.

Wait, so ISP's won't restrict access (or just throttle) to segments of the 'net based on maximum profitability if given the chance despite evidence that they absolutely will and have already attempted baby steps in this direction?

Phew, that's a relief.

ISPs only have the ability to restrict access if the community allows it. Why not construct your own last miles and keep the profit from that in the community instead of letting the ISPs run off with it. Just the existence of our fiber loop dropped typical internet access fees around here in half even before they had more than a handful of customers on it.

and when your little loop is made illegal and taken from you by those very same ISPs? Whats your brilliant plan then?

[GreenGoo]

ISPs only have the ability to restrict access if the community allows it. Why not construct your own last miles and keep the profit from that in the community instead of letting the ISPs run off with it. Just the existence of our fiber loop dropped typical internet access fees around here in half even before they had more than a handful of customers on it.

If we could rely on the good will of ISP's then we wouldn't need Net Neutrality in the first place.

I'm confused why you think they will go only so far and no farther. Because democracy? Seriously?

[Rip]

ISPs don't control the internet, only local access to it and they shouldn't have anywhere near the control they have over that.

Wait, so ISP's won't restrict access (or just throttle) to segments of the 'net based on maximum profitability if given the chance despite evidence that they absolutely will and have already attempted baby steps in this direction?

Phew, that's a relief.

ISPs only have the ability to restrict access if the community allows it. Why not construct your own last miles and keep the profit from that in the community instead of letting the ISPs run off with it. Just the existence of our fiber loop dropped typical internet access fees around here in half even before they had more than a handful of customers on it.

and when your little loop is made illegal and taken from you by those very same ISPs? Whats your brilliant plan then?

Made illegal how? Good luck getting anyone around here to vote for it and the ISPs have already been to the courts and bought a number of politicians to try and stop it only to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/edi ... story.html

PEOPLE IN BOSTON think of their city as a major tech hub. But to see a dynamic broadband Internet market in action, you’re better off heading to Cajun country.

For Lafayette, a city of 120,000 in Southwest Louisiana, building a municipal-owned fiber-optic-to-the-home broadband network hasn’t just pressured the local cable company to upgrade its own Internet service. The municipal network, which took on its first residential customers in 2009 and now offers 1-gigabit-per-second service for as little as $70 a month, has also given the city a tech-forward sheen. If not for the fiber initiative, Mayor Joey Durel asked as we sat in his office Monday, “would you have been here for anything besides boudin or crawfish etouffee?”

In an ideal world, local government agencies would never feel a need to get into the Internet business. But in most of the country, including vast areas of Boston, residents have at most one choice for service that meets the Federal Communications Commission’s current definition of broadband; usually the provider is whichever company owns the decades-old local cable monopoly.

When communities aren’t being served — or, as in Lafayette’s case, they want better service than they’re getting — why should they wait for Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, or other broadband giants to come to their rescue?

Today, the top broadband speeds advertised to residential customers in Boston are about one-ninth of what’s available in Lafayette. A municipal network in Boston isn’t inconceivable; the fiber-optic network now connecting scores of government facilities could theoretically become the spine of a citywide system.

[Remus West]

Two things. First, I see that you are happy to have your internet access in government control. That seems weird to me given your general point of view. Second, just because they have failed so far doesn't mean shit. They have plenty of resources to send towards getting their will enacted and the potential payout is large enough for them to keep trying. Eventually they will succeed. NN being removed is simply their first step.

[Rip]

Two things. First, I see that you are happy to have your internet access in government control. That seems weird to me given your general point of view. Second, just because they have failed so far doesn't mean shit. They have plenty of resources to send towards getting their will enacted and the potential payout is large enough for them to keep trying. Eventually they will succeed. NN being removed is simply their first step.

So I am supposed to be worried about them having control over my internet but not worried about them controlling my power/water/sewage/emergency services? For what it is worth I can still get AT&T or Cox or any of a dozen ISPs if I so desire, so they really don't control my internet. In fact I am posting this through an AT&T connection. Now if I could only choose where to get my power, water, and such from.

[Enough]

Two things. First, I see that you are happy to have your internet access in government control. That seems weird to me given your general point of view. Second, just because they have failed so far doesn't mean shit. They have plenty of resources to send towards getting their will enacted and the potential payout is large enough for them to keep trying. Eventually they will succeed. NN being removed is simply their first step.

So I am supposed to be worried about them having control over my internet but not worried about them controlling my power/water/sewage/emergency services? For what it is worth I can still get AT&T or Cox or any of a dozen ISPs if I so desire, so they really don't control my internet. In fact I am posting this through an AT&T connection. Now if I could only choose where to get my power, water, and such from.

Privatized bottled water is already available, enjoy!

[YellowKing]

I just had to endure (and I do mean ENDURE) a conversation between two pro-Trump co-workers as to why sexual assault claims against Democrats (Conyers, Franken, etc.) had to have some merit, while sexual assault claims against Republicans (Moore, even Trump himself) were purely driven by political motivation. The reasoning was that the "liberals were taking down their own" (exact quote), so the claims had to have some legit basis in truth.

Of course they ignored the fact that one of Moore's accusers voted for Trump, but leaving out inconvenient facts is a hallmark of that mindset.

They also seemed to imply (though coming just short of outright saying) that the Access Hollywood tape was faked. And yes, both Hillary and her emails were invoked in the course of this discussion.

[tjg_marantz]

Now the Dutch are fact checking your president.

https://twitter.com/NLintheUSA/status/9 ... 5249086464

So president, much politician.

[gilraen]

Now the Dutch are fact checking your president.

Oh those poor naive Dutch...have they not realized that a) those here who know that Trump is lying...already know that Trump is lying, and b) those who don't care that he's lying (including himself)...still don't care.

[Kraken]

I don't think he'll find it in anyone's power to overturn the Constitution, no matter how many people he puts in place as judges. They aren't his people, and don't share his specific disregard for our nation in order to reap maximum profits.

Voter suppression, gerrymandering, stacking the courts, discrediting the press, and now potentially hobbling the internet are all being done within the constitutional framework. The Nazis never found it necessary to overturn the Wiemar constitution, either. Yes, I just went Godwin on you.

[LordMortis]

those who don't care that he's lying (including himself)...still don't care.

"I'm not talking about the nature of the video. I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. The threat is real, and that's what the President is talking about."

My president has ruined my country. And my fellow voters accept this reality. What are my options?

[Holman]

When she says this, what can she possibly mean other than "Muslims 'r comin to hurt you!!"

The videos were straight-up racism: they purported to show Muslims being violent and evil, full stop. There was no connection to jihadists. There was attempt to limit the target to terrorists. It was simple hate and bigotry.

This morning the POTUS normalized hate videos, and now his spokespeople are following suit. They tested the waters, they got the exposure, and the pushback is nothing to them. There will be more of this. If nothing else, racists like Britain First now know the president approves.

[gbasden]

It's misleading and unfair to assume that Pai was talking about the de-verification of Spencer and Loomer when (1) he never mentioned them, and (2) they were just two of many instances in which Twitter has recently taken action speech-based action against its account holders.

Pai sucks, but this seems like a bullshit attack. But that's the norm these days, I guess.

Honestly asking as I don't know - has Twitter decertified other mainstream conservative activists, or just heavy alt-right/Nazi types?

[pr0ner]

It's misleading and unfair to assume that Pai was talking about the de-verification of Spencer and Loomer when (1) he never mentioned them, and (2) they were just two of many instances in which Twitter has recently taken action speech-based action against its account holders.

Pai sucks, but this seems like a bullshit attack. But that's the norm these days, I guess.

Honestly asking as I don't know - has Twitter decertified other mainstream conservative activists, or just heavy alt-right/Nazi types?

As far as I know, it's just the latter. Though not all of them, as evidenced by people like Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich still being verified.

[LordMortis]

stuff

That quote is literally terrifying to me. Let's not even pretend that reality matters any more. We do we want. Get in line. Now we will bring on the apocalypse so we can be with Jesus.

[gbasden]

Made illegal how? Good luck getting anyone around here to vote for it and the ISPs have already been to the courts and bought a number of politicians to try and stop it only to fail.

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states.

It's no secret that private Internet service providers hate when cities and towns decide to enter the telecommunications business themselves. But with private ISPs facing little competition and offering slow speeds for high prices, municipalities occasionally get fed up and decide to build their own broadband networks.
To prevent this assault on their lucrative revenue streams, ISPs have teamed up with friends in state legislatures to pass laws that make it more difficult or impossible for cities and towns to offer broadband service.

[Rip]

Two things. First, I see that you are happy to have your internet access in government control. That seems weird to me given your general point of view. Second, just because they have failed so far doesn't mean shit. They have plenty of resources to send towards getting their will enacted and the potential payout is large enough for them to keep trying. Eventually they will succeed. NN being removed is simply their first step.

So I am supposed to be worried about them having control over my internet but not worried about them controlling my power/water/sewage/emergency services? For what it is worth I can still get AT&T or Cox or any of a dozen ISPs if I so desire, so they really don't control my internet. In fact I am posting this through an AT&T connection. Now if I could only choose where to get my power, water, and such from.

Privatized bottled water is already available, enjoy!

A little pricey for me when it comes to washing clothes/car, taking a bath, or filling the pool.

[Holman]

Twitter's stated position is this:

“We are conducting an initial review of verified accounts and will remove verification from accounts whose behavior does not fall within these new guidelines,” the company wrote on Twitter.

Among the behaviors that will result in the revocation of verification are “promoting hate and/or violence”, supporting hate groups, “inciting or engaging in harassment of others”.

This has been huge news in alt-right circles, who have called it a purge and a violation of free speech (although they're still free to post, just without the coveted blue check).

As far as I know, those decertified have been associated with the Charlottesville rally or have suffered numerous complaints due to their posting of hate videos. I believe O'Keefe got it due to specific harassment complaints.

I have trouble believing that anyone, FCC chair or not, would see this as suppression of normal conservatives free from association with alt-right hate groups.

It's misleading and unfair to assume that Pai was talking about the de-verification of Spencer and Loomer when (1) he never mentioned them, and (2) they were just two of many instances in which Twitter has recently taken action speech-based action against its account holders.

Pai sucks, but this seems like a bullshit attack. But that's the norm these days, I guess.

No, he didn't name them, but I really can't think of who else Pai could mean.

[Rip]

Made illegal how? Good luck getting anyone around here to vote for it and the ISPs have already been to the courts and bought a number of politicians to try and stop it only to fail.

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states.

It's no secret that private Internet service providers hate when cities and towns decide to enter the telecommunications business themselves. But with private ISPs facing little competition and offering slow speeds for high prices, municipalities occasionally get fed up and decide to build their own broadband networks.
To prevent this assault on their lucrative revenue streams, ISPs have teamed up with friends in state legislatures to pass laws that make it more difficult or impossible for cities and towns to offer broadband service.

Yea, one of those states is Louisiana yet, we have it. Won a battle all the way to the State Supreme Court to do so.

So for 30 states it is as easy as just doing it, the other 20 have some limitations. Sounds like state rights working as intended. I am sure when the ones with restrictions start seeing how well it works for the others they will grow more accepting of the idea.

https://muninetworks.org/

To be clear I support net neutrality and I don't want them to gut it. I just don't think it is as big a deal as some and I see this direction as a way of winning the war and not bothering with this particular battle.

[gbasden]

No, he didn't name them, but I really can't think of who else Pai could mean.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. We weren't seeing people from National Review or WSJ get decertified, it was people who include literal Nazis. I can understand why Twitter doesn't want to be seen as endorsing them.

[Enough]

Two things. First, I see that you are happy to have your internet access in government control. That seems weird to me given your general point of view. Second, just because they have failed so far doesn't mean shit. They have plenty of resources to send towards getting their will enacted and the potential payout is large enough for them to keep trying. Eventually they will succeed. NN being removed is simply their first step.

So I am supposed to be worried about them having control over my internet but not worried about them controlling my power/water/sewage/emergency services? For what it is worth I can still get AT&T or Cox or any of a dozen ISPs if I so desire, so they really don't control my internet. In fact I am posting this through an AT&T connection. Now if I could only choose where to get my power, water, and such from.

Privatized bottled water is already available, enjoy!

A little pricey for me when it comes to washing clothes/car, taking a bath, or filling the pool.

Exactly what you will get if we privatize basic things like water.

[Rip]

Two things. First, I see that you are happy to have your internet access in government control. That seems weird to me given your general point of view. Second, just because they have failed so far doesn't mean shit. They have plenty of resources to send towards getting their will enacted and the potential payout is large enough for them to keep trying. Eventually they will succeed. NN being removed is simply their first step.

So I am supposed to be worried about them having control over my internet but not worried about them controlling my power/water/sewage/emergency services? For what it is worth I can still get AT&T or Cox or any of a dozen ISPs if I so desire, so they really don't control my internet. In fact I am posting this through an AT&T connection. Now if I could only choose where to get my power, water, and such from.

Privatized bottled water is already available, enjoy!

A little pricey for me when it comes to washing clothes/car, taking a bath, or filling the pool.

Exactly what you will get if we privatize basic things like water.

and exactly what we do have with Telcom services. It is best done like other public utilities services.

[gbasden]

and exactly what we do have with Telcom services. It is best done like other public utilities services.

I utterly and completely agree, by the way. Municipal last mile and internet competition is absolutely the way we should go. Especially in this environment, though, I have no faith that anything not wanted by AT&T and Verizon is going to get any traction.

[Trent Steel]

When she says this, what can she possibly mean other than "Muslims 'r comin to hurt you!!"

The videos were straight-up racism: they purported to show Muslims being violent and evil, full stop. There was no connection to jihadists. There was attempt to limit the target to terrorists. It was simple hate and bigotry.

This morning the POTUS normalized hate videos, and now his spokespeople are following suit. They tested the waters, they got the exposure, and the pushback is nothing to them. There will be more of this. If nothing else, racists like Britain First now know the president approves.

This is exactly how I feel every time I hear her try to defend his bullshit.

[pr0ner]

Can someone translate this one?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 8898636800

The House of Representatives seeks contempt citations(?) against the JusticeDepartment and the FBI for withholding key documents and an FBI witness which could shed light on surveillance of associates of Donald Trump. Big stuff. Deep State. Give this information NOW! @FoxNews

[Holman]

Translation: Flynn has flipped, so Trump needs something dramatic for the anti-DeepState investigation running in his head.

[Alefroth]

At what point does he cross into interfering with an ongoing investigation territory?

[Zaxxon]

May 9, 2017?

[pr0ner]

More Trump stock market narcissism this morning.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 3536573440

The Dow just broke 24,000 for the first time (another all-time Record). If the Dems had won the Presidential Election, the Market would be down 50% from these levels and Consumer Confidence, which is also at an all-time high, would be “low and glum!”

I'd love to know where he gets the idea that the stock market would be down 50% from these levels if Hillary Clinton would elected, other than his own delusion.

[Captain Caveman]

And the unemployment rate would as still be at 45%, as he claimed during the campaign. Trump has already reduced it down to about 4%. He's fucking amazing at what he does and the MSM gives him no credit!

[Isgrimnur]

Part of me has been expecting the next recession ever since the election. Now part of me will be cackling gleefully when it happens on his watch.