Oh boy, forgive me for not appending [sic], too.

Not necessarially opposed to grammatical errors, just the nonsense that it causes. Like this one up here ^

So it would appear that POTUS is now towing a line advocated by none other than whistler-blower Snowden who asserted [8] that “properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.”

Only there’s a problem with this narrative and its promise of salvation: When your threat profile entails a funded outfit like the NSA, cyber security is largely a placebo.

How many pointless articles could be avoided if authors and editors understood the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition? Of course comsec is not a solution per se, Ulbricht can tell you all about that! (And how many more pointless discussions could be avoided if everyone knew "per se" = "by itself".)

300+ pages of justification, like Eric Holder's secret justification on how it's constitutional to shoot down unarmed American citizens without any charge or trial.

They voted on the entire thing, Title II the FCC an enormous amount of power over whatever system it covers (and it does not include the Internet imo - If the FCC is right, can you name any company that'll fall under the "information service" label, now? No?), and at least one of the FCC commissioners who wants to publish the rules seems to disagree with that assertion anyways.

So then WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET? That wasn't a rhetorical question.

Nor was the inquiry as to what actual effect this would have now, except that the FCC gets more power to control the Internet, something we've fought long and hard AGAINST in the past?

FNC SAID IT SO IT MUST BE WRONG!
So what happens when FNC takes aim at against the NSA spy machine, does your little head implode?

Um, Net Neutrality is about dropping packets, with the effect of censoring or throttling service, based on source or destination.

Explain to me what Netflix's cache hardware has to do with Net Neutrality, and what the FCC Title II rules would do about it?

The FCC has released things to the public before, and at the very least, Ajit Pai, one of the two 'no' votes, called to release the (then-proposed) rules, except doing that is at the chair's discretion.

And the ISPs have "openly and brazenly fuck[d] over content producers"... when? Name an incident, and explain why the courts were inadequate.

Another FCC commissioner seems to disagree:

The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

And if it's really responding to public comments to the rules... WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET?

Help, stop, the transparency, it's blinding me.

An "Open Internet" doesn't need 300+ pages of FCC Packet Police powers! All you have to do is go to a court and say "This person promised me 20Mbps to the Internet and I'm only seeing 1Mbps/nothing at all" and the court says "Yep, looks like fraud." Why have the courts been insufficent?

Can you point to ONE example of a "Net Neutrality" violation happening today? Ever? Can you then be so confident that the same people who brought you the Broadcast Flag are the right people to be enforcing this?

Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!

The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.

So when do they release these 322 pages of new rules? With all this transparency, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?! /s

I mean, after the broadcast flag incident, how is it everyone so comfortable with letting the FCC become the packet police? The regular court system has proved to be inadequate... when?

There's a difference between Net Neutrality the voluntary routing rule (before the term was hijacked), and Internet regulations by force, >300 pages of which the FCC is proposing (and we can't even read, how are you enjoying that transparency?).

Net neutrality is fine, but don't let the FCC become the packet police.

Let's be sure that the existing court system can't handle problems BEFORE we go about adding to the pages of legal statute.

Who the hell keeps paying for a product if you don't get anything of value? Stop pretending you know what's good for a person more than they do.

That only happens when you're forced to buy insurance, like, oh, under Obamacare: where young people (by far and away the poorest of any demographic, more than race, education, and geographical location!) are forced to buy overpriced insurance, compared to their risk (and overpriced by law, not because of "Greedy" insurance companies).

No no no no no. What is right (or right, acceptable) isn't the same as what is condoned, or a good idea. The liberal (libertarian) position is "I'm not going to force them to stop." You know, keep your nose in your own business. Formally, this is called the non-aggression principle.

Now, FedEx is declining to ship the product because they're being spineless and afraid of legal action. (Or at least this employee, corporations tend to be less consistent about this stuff than the language would lead you to believe.)

Even if it was entirely internal, no DOJ pressure, sure they have a right to decline business for whatever reason they like (or none at all), and that'd be a bad idea.

And people have a right to protest (not necessarily on another person's property), or to boycott the product, but that'd be a bad idea too.

(Sometimes, people do have to say no for the sake of saying no. By all means, deny people a cake every once in a while for no reason at all, just to remind society yes, you can't be forced to bake a cake for someone just because they're a certain demographic. That's called slavery, slavery is bad, mkay?)