They just summarized the data. The original sources are County Health Rankings & Roadmap from the University of Wisconsin and MIT election labs, which you can verify yourself very easily because they cite their sources.

You brought up County data, well, bottom line:

If you have actual factual county information to contradict that (and not the discredited article the above responded to already), please present it. So far all you've done is made unsupported assertions which conflict with the known facts and people's observations of the reality around them.

Here are the facts. Go argue with them.

The part of red states which are "more dangerous" are the Democratic run cities. If you look at the county level, you'll see the same thing, the counties with Democratic run cities are the worst in terms of violent crime and murder.

Typo for 2014....

Comcast vs. Netflix had nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Their dispute also happened in 2024, well before the deregulation in 2017. Were they time travelers, to cause it?

The "corporate giants" prefer the FCC regulating their industry, because that way they can use their political and commission connections to get rules put in place over time limiting their competition, which has the side effect of stagnating the industry. Regulatory Capture is a much larger threat to the Internet than anything which has happened in the absence of FCC control.

"The agency has ample power to police the types of services that are becoming less relevant in American life, such as landline telephones, and little power to police those that are becoming more important every day."

Over time, the FCC hurts the technologies it regulates, because it ends up captured by a combination of industry big players and political hacks. All of the "problems" used to justify FCC regulations are a combination of speculative non-issues and minor issues where the "cure" is worse than the disease.

The reason the Internet in general and broadband specifically has been able to grow as well as it has is in part due to the lack of regulation helping big corporations and government from squashing it. The supposed "issues" are just an excuse to get the FCC's foot in the door so they can sell their power and influence.

The dissents in the case were from Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. I'm not sure anyone would describe them as "the two strong leftist judges", but their concerns were primarily about the impacts on potential victims.

Fortunately, the people who live there don't want people like you to live there either. So you can both get what you want!

Don't worry. The only thing this is supposed to actually accomplish is another method of diverting money to Democratic party allies and organizers. It's a slush fund for well-connected Democratic city politicians and their buddies, just like "green jobs" is a way to pay off some of their business allies.

First, they were defrauding the anti-NN companies which paid them to reach out to actual people for comments. This is like paying someone to pass out leaflets for you and they just toss them all in the dumpster and claim they did they work.

Second, they weren't "subverting American democracy". Democracy is when the people vote on things, or indirectly, when the representatives they vote for vote on things. The people didn't vote for the FCC, it's not a democratic institution, it's an, albeit politically appointed, bureaucratic one.

Third, as it turned out, it probably didn't matter anyway. The short-lived so-called "Net Neutrality" rules were repealed and approximately none of the hyper-ventilated disasters the proponents of the rules predicted actually occurred (which makes sense, because they didn't happen in the decades before the rules were created, either). We're still having this discussion on the same old /. internet site, which no actual effect of the NN rules repeal on our access, nor how it works.

Exactly. The technology for this has existed for a while. There's nothing stopping these types of organizations, local libraries, whatever, from starting their own social network sites, except the need to attract users by making their services something people actually want.

Now, if the proposal is actually to use the force of government to shut down any competing "non-community" social networks so that they don't have to compete for users, that's a terrible idea.

The way NAT works is that you don't need legacy IPs on the inside, you can use private IPs, because they're being translated on the outside.

Why would you assign public IPv4 space, and then NAT it? Do one or the other, either assign an IPv4 address to a user's router, or else use IPv6 w/NAT and configure the internal network to use a private IPv4 network, like every other similar ISP does.

Their explanation of why they care what IP stack a device on a user's internal network is configured for is nonsensical, unless they're doing something really stupid like trying to treat their entire WAN like a bridge LAN network.

Which is the same under any governmental or economic system except left-wing anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. The currency may just shift a bit, but paying for governments favors in lots of ways (Cash, favors, personal services, other goods, etc...) is pretty universal, not something associated with capitalism.

I agree, there's a bit of a disconnect on terms there.

But even using your definition, how would government officials doing something be capitalist? There is no capital involved on the control side, it's all regulations with politicians and government bureaucrats making all the decisions. The only (minimal) capital which becomes involved are the friends of the politicians supplying a tiny bit of capital to fund a few telephones per prison and a website to collect people's money. This is hardly a capital-intensive industry, and without the politicians deciding not to just use the regular phone system (which is, admittedly, highly regulated itself), these "prison phone" companies wouldn't exist at all.

You don't appear to realize that 92% of the prisons in the U.S. are fully government run, not private prisons.

These issues we're discussing are issues with government prisons run by government officials, although typically things like phone services at state prisons are mandated by state level officials.

This has nothing to do with private organizations, other than the private organizations government officials decide to turn into government monopolies. Without the government officials with the power to benefit their friends, the companies which get the phone service contracts wouldn't even exist. They were started specifically for these government contracts, they're not general telecom companies or anything like that.