If it happens, our community may dissapear:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns (http://youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns)
Spread the word!
Click [Subscribe] to see me naked naked naked naked naked lol
/me is mesmerised by the silly animated GIF
And it's nice to see that scraggly hair + scraggly beard + geekglasses is 'cool' now.
Hmmm....there may be a glimmer of truth in what they say, but the whole set-up is too funny. Why do they choose 2012?
I'd want to hear that from a source that has just a tiny suggestion of reliability and seriousness before I pay any attention to it.
(I didn't look at the whole thing, so maybe they're doing this all the time, but 06:26 is some truly weird cutting work... who are these people?)
Can someone break down the content of that clip? I got insta-bored
1:30-3:00 covers the main stuff.
I do not exclude the possibility that this may be a lie. But still, you also can not exclude the possibility that it is true. And if it i so, then this site will stop functioning!
Edit to Evil: Watch Zeitgeist.
Don't worry, we'll all be dead soon after.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T3bxymRd3WA
I mean, the Mayans had a far more sophisticated calendar system then we do so they must be right. And this big boobied woman has insider access to all ISP decisions, so they must be right too.
Quote from: Evil on Sun 08/06/2008 22:06:16
Don't worry, we'll all be dead soon after.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T3bxymRd3WA
I mean, the Mayans had a far more sophisticated calendar system then we do so they must be right. And this big boobied woman has insider access to all ISP decisions, so they must be right too.
five'll get you ten that the end of the internet and the end of the world are the same thing.
I think this video is a HOAX... perpetrated by the ISPs! They're actually going to do this in 2010, and they want us to believe we have more time than we really do. They're all in on it...
The Beglians basically say that they have it on high authority that ALL major ISPs have agreed with major corporations to constrict and sell off access to the internet. Ending all traffic to smaller websites and possibly killing the spirit of the internet as soon as 2012.
They are activists asking for people to take notice. Even though they look a scraggly bunch I'm happy they do what they do. Net neutrality isn't going to be covered on any network TV shows any time soon.
There's a whole world of stuff in-between network TV and these guys. I don't even watch network TV, but I'm still holding off my reactions until I find information from a source just a few steps above this happy band on the ladder of reliability.
Sure, they may well be completely right, but they don't even try to help me verify it. I'd be a very busy man if I trusted everything random people on YouTube said. Busy and stupid.
The particular thing they're suggesting is really huge. Let's assume it's true. If there isn't already a bunch of real information about it (I couldn't find any real quick) there will be tomorrow. I can wait until tomorrow before even worrying a bit.
For those of use who prefer not to watch videos, can someone tell us WTF this is about?
Quote from: SSH on Sun 08/06/2008 23:28:27
For those of use who prefer not to watch videos, can someone tell us WTF this is about?
According people that claim to be anti net neutrality activists, most of the major ISP's are going to start charging basic subscription packages to access all the popular sites (google, MSN, yahoo) so if you want to access any other sites, like say, this one, you'd need to pay an additional subscription fee. They liken it to getting basic cable and then upgrading to get more chanels.
The people in the video further go on to assert that this will fairly rapidly do away with most if not all the sites that aren't on the A-list.
...
Then, the other video is about the Mayan's predicting that I'm going to blow up the world as soon as I have to start paying for internet porn.
Yeah, net-neurtality is a big big thing, but all it takes is one new start-up ISP to say "hey folks, we offer unrestricted internet access! no two-tier internet for us!", everyone who cares flocks to them, all the other providers sit around looking a bit foolish and making less money and the whole silly idea goes away.
At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!
Quote from: Adamski on Sun 08/06/2008 23:43:35
At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!
Here's to that hope as well! :)
Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 09/06/2008 00:05:26
Quote from: Adamski on Sun 08/06/2008 23:43:35
At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!
Here's to that hope as well! :)
My concern is this, In almost all cases where the government SHOULD have stood up against lobbying and added regulation against this sort of thing, ultimately the large corporations do get their way. Either through mergers, monopolies, or even public policy.
The government sold our digital airwaves for peanuts a few years back. I can just imagine threats of internet security somehow twisting public opinion into somehow favoring this idea. I do believe it is a threat and should NOT fall under the conspiracy theory category.
The only questionable fact in that video, IMO, was the date 2012.
Well, I hardly believe these guys were serious. If you watch any other video of that Athene-channel (pretending to be porn), you see those guys talking nonsense about some stupid things. They don't want to be taken seriously..
QuoteYeah, net-neurtality is a big big thing, but all it takes is one new start-up ISP to say "hey folks, we offer unrestricted internet access! no two-tier internet for us!", everyone who cares flocks to them, all the other providers sit around looking a bit foolish and making less money and the whole silly idea goes away.
Evenwolf brings up a very valid point: in a perfect world (or at least one in which governments kept their fingers out of the economic pie as much as possible) free markets would work precisely as you suggest, and inferior and/or immoral business practices would be pushed out by popular choice. However, we are living increasingly in a world where governments are playing favorites with special interest groups, so in the climate of today something like this is a very real possibility.
The solution? Stop walking around with your eyes shut and start taking an active interest in your government's lawmaking and ethical behaviors. And especially for Americans, stop feeling so damned apathetic and get out there and vote on the issues! Governments by and large prefer their citizens to be complacent and not particularly bright (we're easier to rule that way) and many, many questionable pieces of legislation have been slipped under the radar just because enough people aren't interested/paying attention
until the ramifications slap them in the face.
That said, this could be largely a false report, but there is at least
some beginning of a precedent with a particular UK service provider (I simply can't remember the name, just that they are planning on a surcharge for internet subscribers NOT on their service to access sites on their servers). This is essentially a first step towards what the video describes, so take it for what you will. I've personally watched more than a few US congressmen discussing how Congress is scrambling to come to grips with the freedom of information in the internet, and
more regulation is never the answer in a free society.
The same thing happened with radio: in the 1920's / 1930's the airwaves were free and there were millions of amateur broadcaster. Then under pressure from the music industry that was banned and only a few channels were allowed. It's all about license money and royalties.
The industry is bound to try something like it with the internet since they're losing bucketloads of money from it.
I don't know how difficult or easy it'll be to be a 'pirate' in such a system, but they will try to put internet on a leash.
I don't think it's accurate to say they are losing money, but rather just not making what they imagine they could if they had total control. Losing money implies that the internet is damaged and needs fixing; wanting more money implies something else entirely.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 09/06/2008 01:26:47
Losing money implies that the internet is damaged and needs fixing; wanting more money implies something else entirely.
I want more money! Why not me? Why do big conglomerates keep getting richer and I keep getting fuckeder?
Do what they do and buy some middle men. Middle men will always do the trick.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 09/06/2008 01:26:47
I don't think it's accurate to say they are losing money, but rather just not making what they imagine they could if they had total control. Losing money implies that the internet is damaged and needs fixing; wanting more money implies something else entirely.
What I meant was that the people at the top want to internet to be more controlled so they can put a stop to illegal file sharing.
(From their point of view they're losing money.)
Not just file sharing.
There's all sorts of ad revenue they're losing if consumers don't stick to their websites or their cable channels. They don't make any profits off the sketch comedy websites or places you visit like the Onion. They don't make any money off of AGS either. And the more time we spend away from them the less ratings and ad sales they receive. Viacom, Time Warner, Vivendi, News Corp., AT&T - companies that are currently making money off the internet... realize they will actually make more money cutting up the internet and selling it to us piece by piece rather than just sell us "service". Why make $40 a month when they can get $40 per download.
With all the new proprietary gadgets they are developing ( like the "Box", a sort of TV Computer in one) they will whittle down what we have access to, favoring ultimately a system where they can control the advertisements page by page, and limit the movies we watch to the ones their studios reap the profits from.
It will be legislative, but it will also be with new proprietary development. Just wait and see. If your parents one day come home from Best Buy with a TV/PC/Home Stereo system you'll know what I mean. Avoid said device like the plague.
Welcome to The Box (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EEDC1031F933A1575AC0A96E958260)
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 09/06/2008 00:48:16
Evenwolf brings up a very valid point: in a perfect world (or at least one in which governments kept their fingers out of the economic pie as much as possible) free markets would work precisely as you suggest,
Not necessarily, given that the internet was initially set up by universities and the army.
However, do note that this applies to
American ISPs, and that other countries may well keep the entire 'net open. In which case, well, sucks to be you.
I imagine if this happens, we'll find a way around it regardless.
Every time free access is inhibited, two pirates are born. Every time you lock down the internet, a million hackers are born.
Quote from: evenwolf on Mon 09/06/2008 00:22:29
The only questionable fact in that video, IMO, was the date 2012.
Along with, in that case, the whole idea of the very specific plan they're talking about being in the pipelines, and contracts being signed by ISPs and all that... in other words, the stuff that the video was actually about. Net neutrality in general is a big and important issue, but making shit up really doesn't benefit the cause, and that's precisely what these guys are doing, if we can agree that they're wrong about the date and so on. You don't see a problem with that?
I'm certainly keeping my eyes on this development, but to be perfectly honest I'm not that worried. It's definitely no secret that this sort of thing completely screws up all that's really awesome about the internet--but the thing is, it's not just crackers, pirates and perverts who benefit from the traditional free internet. Think about good old businesses, pro-democratic organizations in those scary Middle Eastern places everyone fears, as well as some of the guys who kind of started it all: universities and research institutes. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think
the ISPs are powerful enough to overthrow all of that.
Quote from: evenwolf on Mon 09/06/2008 02:59:54
Not just file sharing.
There's all sorts of ad revenue they're losing if consumers don't stick to their websites or their cable channels. They don't make any profits off the sketch comedy websites or places you visit like the Onion. They don't make any money off of AGS either. And the more time we spend away from them the less ratings and ad sales they receive.
Don't forget about open-source. There are a lot of substitutes for various commercial software and they keep getting better and better. How to stop it? Just break their communities.
Quote from: EldKattThink about good old businesses, pro-democratic organizations in those scary Middle Eastern places everyone fears, as well as some of the guys who kind of started it all: universities and research institutes. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the ISPs are powerful enough to overthrow all of that.
I'm guessing the sites labeled with "advertise" or "commercial" would be allowed by the ISP's, probably as long as the organization pays the "don't ban me" fee.
I saw the video, and it just didn't sit well with me. There are far too many businesses that make money through the current model of the internet. This includes major corporations, such as Google, where a free internet can only add revenue. I'm not arguing that other major corporations aren't trying to create a new model, I'm arguing that there are far too many people that the new internet would leave behind, that I'm sure there not just going to sit idly by and let it happen.
Radio was mentioned, but I don't think radio is nearly on the same scale as the internet. This isn't the same scenario, and I don't think the outcome will be the same either.
We should always strive for net neutrality, but I don't think we need to have a pressing fear that big business is going to take our internet freedom(s) away. Nor should we have the fear that AGS is going to disapear. That's rubbish.
-MillsJROSS
Besides, wouldn't this mean the end of Google? Whats the use of a search engine if there's nothing to search?
I doubt Google with their billions of dollars will let that happen.
Nice usage of the word "besides", Zor :P
hahahaha!
The English moderator spoke!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
(Couldn't resist, ok... the whole subject of net neutrality is dead serious and the video is dead silly... condtratictory on it's own...)
Really, there was a thread a few months back that Virgin sub-president or something is looking forward to having different speeds on the internet. Is this bound to happen? In all honesty I think that yes! What will save us? web 3.01 or something... I just hope that when the Internet fucks us, there will be people who will spread the word of the new way of ultimate democracy! I'm trying SO hard to explain to my wife the nature of forums and she still doesn't get it...
Anyways, I'm out! ;D
In all seriousness, if I never found AGS, thus not using it today, I couldn't care less.
It's very selfish, I know, but personally I don't use the internet much at all. 98% of the time I'm logging on to check the forums and that's it. The other 2% is looking up how to spell something on dictionary.com, recipes, little informational stuff, but nothing I can't find in a library or an actual physical dictionary.
I found the Mayan video substantially more interesting, and quite disturbingly scary.
Click here (http://www.myfootshop.com/images/medical/derm/stasis_dermatitis_leg1_mod.jpg) to see me naked LOL
--Snake
Quote from: Andail on Tue 10/06/2008 13:03:13
Nice usage of the word "besides", Zor :P
Haha... I don't quite understand the joke :p Did I use it incorrectly?
In the sense that you repeated the above post almost exactly ;)
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 09/06/2008 07:59:51
However, do note that this applies to American ISPs, and that other countries may well keep the entire 'net open. In which case, well, sucks to be you.
That's a very short-sighted way of looking at things. Let's face it -- anything the Americans do will eventually find its way to Europe. (Except Twinkies. They never made it). If Eircom looks across the pond and sees just how much more money AT&T is suddenly making, you
know they'll do the exact same thing.
However, like someone said earlier (evenwolf?): all it would take is one independent Internet Service Provider to break the system. At least in Ireland, it's law that any changes to the constitution
must be voted upon by the public, so the chances of our government passing a ban against 'free internet' is slim...