> They can “reclassify the internet, at will?!” Seriously? God, your bias is so glaringly obvious when you slip with stupid shit like this.

I’ve supported all of these points with many links, over many discussions on this page. If you don’t want to take the time to find them, sorry.

That there would have to be huge infrastructure changes and that it would cost a lot of money and time, if we changed the way CDNs are set up? Okay. If we agree, then why on Earth would you be okay with that?

> You do know that the source is an opinion piece? I am not saying its not a valid piece of material but it does draw caution from me.

Which source? I mean this whole discussion is an “opinion piece.” The article I cited is my own, and so is simply a my argument, written out, although I cite other sources which…

> In very specific situations, sure. CDNs do not rely on ISPs to operate,however. They’d get by just fine, and provide folks with giant benefits either way.

> My true concern with this point really falls on my not wanting anyone to determine what I want to look at on the internet. And, given the information from the actual legislation, the US government has procured no right to determine content use or regulation.

> Even if net neutrality is unconstitutional I don’t think it undermines 1a arguments against the government regulating content. I don’t see that there is precedent to support that being a likely outcome.

> It’s fairly obvious that the root ideological difference is in how broadly we believe the constitution can and should be interpreted.

Yes. There is a fundamental difference there.

It’s meaningless because it does nothing to move the discussion forward. Speak to my points. If you have to cite some nonexistent playbook in order to skirt the discussion, then stop wasting my time.

> Hmm, I don’t recall ever saying that. Say, what’s it called when you set up an argument your opponent never made and then strike it down?

> Is it really a logical fallacy to look beyond the legal jargon of a spending bill and at the people who want it and why, though?

> (by the way, you’ve committed all of those in these two threads. countless times)

** hominem

> But are you looking at the people who are trying to get it erased? Like, the sponsors of the repeated attempts to sneak these changes in with things like spending bills. All the suits standing behind the policy makers are a very good clue in to actual intentions.

Ah. You’re right. It was some unskilled curator. That’s sad.

> True, in that state government and even federal government subsidizes some of the infrastructure. Not universally true as some things are funded locally. Either way, not relevant to what we’re talking about here.

No. Read the article. Don’t make light of the skill that curators have.

I’m certainly glad that they were able to restore the mask. Accidentally messing up such an artifact is bad. However, it was an accident. Making the damage worse by not owning up to it is far worse. The only one who should be touching such an artifact are those who are skilled curators.

> CDNs do not get priority over remote servers, however because they are often have a shorter distance to cover, they do, technically deliver content faster, from a user’s perspective. Has nothing to do with Fast-Lanes and Net Neutrality is not violated simply because I can ping a local server faster than I can ping a…

Look through this thread. I’ve written a full argument on this topic. If you have nothing useful to say, then shut up.