Net Neutrality, Alex Jones, Gay Wedding Cakes and Wild Fires

Remember back when the decision was made to repeal Net Neutrality? Outrage ensued, since Net Neutrality would essentially be the first step to making the internet and it’s providers a public utility. The same people that were outraged then over the repeal are the same people applauding the decision to remove Alex Jones from practically all internet platforms. How is that you may ask? Well, those people, they believe that only their speech and their expression are the only approved or allowed forms.

How about the baker/artist in Colorado who was taken to the Supreme Court? He was made to fight for his right to express himself, however he chooses. Yet, to this day, he is still fighting, and he is still used as an example of how religion is a weapon used against homosexuality. Yet, not a peep from the gay community or their champions on Muslim bakeries. Is there any Muslim bakery that would willfully make a wedding cake for a gay wedding? Must be nice to willfully don blinders and only look and blame in one direction.

There are now reports that Verizon throttled service and it impacted response times and communication during rescue operations in the ongoing California wildfires. Whether is was data that was controlled or cellular phone reception or service, I couldn’t tell you. But, in any case, was this due to the repeal of Net Neutrality? Maybe and maybe not. The investigation continues, yet Verizon holds many government contracts. Will that have an impact on the findings? Maybe and maybe not.

In closing, I would like to ask you, the reader a few questions.

1. What do you think or believe about Net Neutrality now?

2. Should the internet become a utility?

3. Do providers, like private establishments (restaurants, bakeries, etc.) retain the right to refuse service?

4. Where do our rights come from and who presides over them?

5. What is or should be the catalyst for the government to step in and begin stripping citizens of their rights, without due diligence or due process?

16 thoughts on “Net Neutrality, Alex Jones, Gay Wedding Cakes and Wild Fires

  1. There is a chance that I am not fully informed on the topic of Net Neutrality. When all this was spiraling out of control, I was making life changing decisions, so I did not have time to dive into the details. What I do remember was that everyone seemed to be freaking out, because it would slow down the Internet down to turtle speed. Pages would take forever to load. Well… I don’t know what happened, but my Internet still seems to work exactly the same as it did back then. Am I missing something?

    The Internet IS a utility. I pay for it. Don’t you?

    Yes, I believe that private businesses should have the ability to turn down anyone for ANY reason. It’s THEIR business. THEY are losing money. Some people are just not worth dealing with. No matter how much they paid me. I’d rather have a peace of mind. You are absolutely correct. Again. Regarding the hypocrisy. Some people CAN, and others CAN’T refuse services. Ridiculous.

    Don’t tell me what to do with my property. Get out.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Exactly right. In order to maintain our freedom, we must extend the same freedom to everyone, especially those whom we disagree with. The internet is not an actual utility, yes we have it and pay for it. But it is not viewed as a necessity for life or habitat, unlike plumbing or electricity or gas.

      The more we demand “rights” for things that are not rights, the less important the remaining rights become.

      As far as Net Neutrality is concerned, I think that businesses that want to continue to stay in business and continue to make money. Will do whatever it takes to ensure their services remain top notch. Any company that would willfully turn away regular business based on new principles, is destined to fail eventually. Another company will come along and fill that void. The Christian baker has already lost a ton of business, yet it was his choice, so I would think he knew that this could be an outcome.

  2. Interesting piece about a very timely topic. I strongly favor net neutrality, but I am also opposed to discrimination against people for possessing traits that they cannot control or determine for themselves. For instance, race and sexual orientation.

    As for Alex Jones, I have written about that issue. I take a view opposed to yours based on Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance”. You can find my post here:

    https://cafephilos.blog/2018/08/15/alex-jones-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance/

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Discrimination goes both ways, always has and always will. The problem I see is that the discrimination is monetarily rewarded. So it just continues, the only variable is the time that it happens in. Two wrongs don’t make it right, although animosity exists, if freedom is what we desire, then we must allow those whom we disagree with that same freedom.

      The French Revolutionist were notorious for their use of the guillotine to force compliance, eventually, those who used the guillotine were eventually placed under that same guillotine. What goes around comes around, sad, but true.

  3. Here in Australia, during the national gay marriage plebiscite held late last year, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull promised to protect the rights of those opposed to gay marriage, should the “yes” vote win. After the “yes” crowd won by a landslide, Turnbull went 180 degrees in the opposite direction and stated that there would be no action taken to protect religious freedoms.

      1. Yeah. Just in the last hour or so, Turnbull was deposed as PM and replaced by the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, who, when he takes office (probably in the next day or so) will be our 5th prime minister in 5 years. (No PM has served a single full term since 2007.)

  4. Anonymous

    My limited knowledge on the topics you’ve written about only allows to me to answer #3, at this point…I would have to do more research and or some extremely deep thinking to answer the others but yeah absolutely, every business reserve the right to not provide their services to whomever whenever..Totally their call and their right.

  5. 1. NN was a big lie to start with. Problem-reaction-solution mess. The Internet was originally neutral all by itself, even with the bad parts.

    2. Utility? Hm. Would that make it more ‘neutral’? It might make it easier for the gubment to control ISPs, search engines & sites that may rail against said gubment (can you say China).

    3. All business ‘should’ have the right to refuse service to anyone. The ATF will tell all FFL dealers that they do NOT have to sell a weapon to anyone. Forcing a business owner to provide a service or a product against the will of the owner is straight-up communism…and slavery. Even an LEO has ‘officer discretion’ to NOT charge someone with a crime. They could be fired but, it is there.

    4. Our Creator

    5. I’m a small gubment type. It shouldn’t be stripping rights. It should be reinstating them (Patriot Act, anyone).

    Just four cents worth…our currency grows weaker by the minute…

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Oh man, China, the real enemy. I concur with your assessment. Thanks for reading and commenting. I look forward to more conversations with you.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.