WE MADE IT TO THE FINALS! NOW WE NEED YOUR VOTES MORE THAN EVER!!!Encyclopedia Dramatica is in contention for the 2nd Annual Mashable Open Web Awards for the wiki category. With your help, we can beat the Wikipedia menace! Plz vote for ED by going here; you can vote once per day, per email address, ballot stuffing encouraged! Just don't forget to confirm the vote via e-mail. VOTE OR DIE!!!
Talk:Net Neutrality
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
who wrote this
i mean seriously
| HRD |
Contents |
[edit] This article is GHEY
Its written by someone who has complete disregard to basic microeconomics and knowledge economics. Not to mention therei s a complete lack of lulz. Off to fix this corporate propaganda up. You actually pay MOAR when there is NO net neutrality regulation in an oligopolistic (and often times monopolistic) market. --DavidMiscarriage 17:53, 12 June 2008 (CDT)
[edit] I want to add something, but I'm not sure where the best place to put it would be.
Here's what I want to add: "It is a well known fact that Raptor Jesus invented teh internets with a liberal bias to make up for the IRL conservative bias...or maybe just for the lulz."Sgt. Cowboy 09:08, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
- You should put it up your ass. That line is terrible. We already have enough overused memes randomly thrown in every article. ~ Endedrural (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2009 (CDT)
- that and, as we well know, it was actually al gore Nivi 08:09, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
[edit] o wat
I am confused about Net Neutrality. Am I supposed to be for or against it. Also, is that the one where I have to pay extra for moar interbutts or the one where I don't have to.
Also, I appear to be largely sarcasm-deficient. I hope for a clear, honest explanation soon - thanks, ED! Feebas factor 00:45, 6 June 2008 (CDT)
- Well, I can't tell you what you're supposed to be for or against, but having no net neutrality laws could cause harm to sites like ED that do it for the love of the snugglenets and not the profits. Sites which do pay the ISPs would have bandwidth preference over non-paying sites. - raspberry_rush 00:56, 6 June 2008 (CDT)
Oh... thanks. So, is this article meant to be very misleading about the topic, then...? Following what DavidMiscarriage noted above, I'm not sure if it is complicated sarcasm or just muddled writing. Feebas factor 02:48, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
- DavidMiscarriage probably faps off to Richard Branson's biography, but he could be right. You work it out. - raspberry_rush 04:50, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
Here's a non-sarcastic explanation of this issue: Net Neutrality means that all content on the internet is delivered to users at the same speed. This makes everything go through the pipelines at roughly equivalent rates. You pay your service provider by the month to use the internet, but not for what you specifically use it for. It's the internet as we have it today. Those against Net Neutrality say that if you download lots of stuff from the internet, you should pay your service provider more for it. They also want the content providers (ED, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and every other website on the internet) to pay the service providers based on how fast they want their websites to get to customers (so, Yahoo is rich and can afford to pay service providers lots of money so their stuff loads lightning fast. ED is poor and can't pay service providers so their stuff loads extremely slowly). Ominous 19:16, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
- Alright.
- ...from ED's perspective, then, why does half of this article seem to oppose net neutrality instead? Although I'm guessing it wasn't intentional, rather a victim of the LOL RANDOM JOKE NAO attitude that seems to inevitably creep into many articles. Ah well - I suppose if anyone actually feels they understand it decently/feels internet neutrality is SRS BSNS, they can go and rewrite the article themselves without much objection. Feebas factor 22:54, 16 July 2008 (CDT)
[edit] Duhrrrr
If every internet service provider is going to do away with net neutrality, and limit our internet usage to only a handful of websites, then wouldn't an internet service provider that sticks with whats been working suddenly become the top dog of ISPs? It seems to me if one ISP doesn't change, or if a new ISP shows up letting people browse the entire internet for the same price, then that ISP will get all the customers, effectively butt fucking all the other ISP companies. Doesn't that logic null and void this whole conspiracy bullshit? One company not following through with this master plan effectively destroys the whole idea AND gets all the customers who want to browse every website available instead of 30. LoliHAETpizza 20:01, 21 July 2008 (CDT)
- general public are uneducated and sign up for the cooler advertising campaign, not the better deal or more ethical company (see Apple and McDonalds), hence why government imposed industry laws and regulations are important, imo. - raspberry_rush 09:46, 23 July 2008 (CDT)
