User in r/conservative makes an argument for net neutrality.

User in r/conservative makes an argument for net neutrality.


Thanks /u/DaveandDaveandDave for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*


A conservative calling for government regulation, and making his/her argument by citing net neutrality and access to clean drinking water? Is that right?


Accidentally based


That could be the alternate name for this sub.


It is the name for a Twitter account that covers a lot of the same material


Suddenly liberal? Overflow on the political spectrum (i.e. so far right you go left)?


Liberal isn't left.


Context is important. Liberal does not equal left, you're right. But when discussing American politics, which we are, liberals are on the left. I say this as a leftist.


Ehhhh. In the context of Nazi Germany, Trump would be relatively left. I still wouldn't call him left. It's more accurate to say the US has two right wing parties.


*so crazy you become sane


Not accidentally. In this case, he is just plain right. People here should admit that when it's seen. He does not fit this sub, because he is just right. He probably wants net neutrality as well


Yes, but the thing is that most conservatives and progressives believe that things like water and internet shouldn't be restricted in that particular way. The catch is that most conservatives, unlike progressives, doesn't believe that costs should be considered a restriction. So internet being unaffordable for those working poverty wages wouldn't be considered as problematic to a conservative. Net neutrality is important to them because they realize that lack of it would make their propaganda harder to share, not because they're worried about democracy. The best example of that mentality is their view on gun policy vs first amendment/voting. They're perfectly fine with laws that restricts the second as long as the right to own a firearm isn't. Their dream society is one where gun ownership is high, where voting right is for the few and where minorities aren't allowed to air their grievances in public places. Ps: not necessarily about that redditor, rather about the conservative ideology.


Definitely not a conservative. Once in a while someone sane goes there and makes arguments that *seem* to support the conservative POV, but are actually the opposite.


Conservative platform these days is just owning the libs. We’ve already seen them vote down every stimulus bill but then still take credit for the bill passing


Trump supporters are just spiteful and want others to suffer like they do themselves. They just don’t realize they are suffering bc they keep voting for Republicans who continually defund their public education and social services that are meant to alleviate their suffering. Coupled with decades of conservative media brainwashing them to think their suffering is rooted in liberalism.


What’s funny is most red states take much more handouts from the government. I don’t think it’ll be long before these policies start to bite republicans in the butt. I think Covid is going to speed up this process


Said it before and I'll say it again: most GOP base voters are ok with big government, as long as it benefits whites only. In other words, they're the same ideological Jim Crow Democrats they've always been: socialism for whites, white supremacy for everyone else.


Yes. This is literally a facet of authoritarianism, which is the antithesis of freedom and the basic foundational tenets of our country. In order for conservatism to exist, there must be in-groups that the laws protects but does not bind, and out-groups that the law binds but does not protect. This is why they fight so hard for the police, this is why they bootlick their preferred politicians so hard. Conservatism *is* Authoritarianism in it's purest form. You must have an authority to enforce the will of the authoritarians. And as long as the 'authority' is hurting the "right people", they will continue to sign their rights and the rights of others away to maintain this false sense of superiority over others. > "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." [Lyndon B. Johnson](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/)


I’m Filipino American and a lot of my family and family friends are die hard republican. One of my aunts went to a few Trump rallies. They’re mostly my older immigrant relatives who came to this country to work and improve their lives. Other than the Catholicism thing, I honestly can’t believe how conservative Filipinos are (usually our parents not the first gen). They LOVE Duterte. They succumb to populists. Same with Cubans. Colonial mindset.


Far right ethnic nationalism is on the rise all over the world right now, mostly in places that are becoming more ethnically diverse.


You'll find more immigrants are traditionalist, which has intersection with conservatism. American conservatism has a very class distinct view, considering it the natural order of things, and can be quite racist at times due to the number of minorities/immigrants in the lower classes. It's because of this class distinction that the view minority/immigrant must be Democrats has arisen. The idea society must progress to fix the ills is largely a western one.


You have a source for this? I'd like to spread the word if this is true.


Just Google "red states net drain" or something like that. But yes, for every tax dollar collected, red states get back many times what they paid in because of how low their taxes are and how many low income citizens they have. Blue states are better educated, earn higher incomes and get taxed at a much higher rate to support the red states. Red states are essentially the welfare queens that red states warn you about.






Whoah that was a cool article, thanks!


> I don’t think it’ll be long before these policies start to bite republicans in the butt. Red states have the worst schools, lowest quality of life, highest rates of infant mortality, lowest property values, etc. They are already suffering, they just are too lost to realize it.


Suffering from success, maybe. Those conditions create more conservatives, they consider it ideal.


Also the highest suicide rates. Like.. 17 out of the top 20 states.


I think many of them are OK with suffering if they think that people they hate are suffering WORSE.


A huge number of Trump supporters aren’t suffering in any measurable way


Giving people the same rights and privileges they have = persecution, duh.


Accepting and even praising people for things that make them uncomfortable or go against their own belief system = persecution


They've been led for decades to believe that a lack of humane immigration, increasing police authority, no abortions(for women that aren't your mistress) and zero firearm oversight for *themselves* is more important than a quality education, single payer healthcare, and economically supporting the working class is for everyone.


I saw this comment yesterday that said, "A fairy came to a woodsman and said 'I will grant you any wish, but I will double to your neighbor'. So the woodsman says, 'take both my eyes' They'll do anything to make sure the libzzzz get hurt ,even if it hurts them more


In case anyone thinks this is a exaggeration, check out what the 2020 platform said. Oh wait, you can't, because they [literally didn't write one](https://www.vox.com/2020/8/24/21399396/republican-convention-platform-2020-2016).


> Conservative platform these days is just owning the libs. It's more than that. Abortion is still big and don't forget conspiracy theory nonsense from 70 years ago.


I got banned for comparing the ARP to the CARES act over there. I was geniunely asking because I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, and people were absolutely tearing into Biden for the ARP. I was trying to be neutral, but I was banned for not being biased enough...that is literally the rule they cited lol


So... if you’re unbiased, you don’t belong in that sub? Gotta maintain the Republican status quo (ignorance is bliss!!!) Too many Republicans give the true meaning of conservatism a bad name.


Here is where I was directed after my permanent ban: "1. We are not a debate forum. We are not here to indulge you in your leftist views that history has proven wrong over and over again. We are not going to waste our time with you arrogantly telling us how wrong you think we are. 2. We are not a place for explanation. The Internet has this amazing feature called search engines, and we recommend you looking up what things are. This can happen instantly, rather than you typing out a question in a subreddit, and then waiting around to see if someone answers your question. 3. We recommend DuckDuckGoWe are not a chatroom. If you look at our subreddit, it should become wildly obvious that we prefer article posts. All text posts are filtered for review, and only a small number get approved. They have to be extremely relevant, extremely interesting, or have so much potential, we can't ignore them. 4. We are not fair and balanced. We don't pretend to be unbiased. We don't pretend to give all commenters equal time. This is by conservatives and for conservatives. We are here to discuss conservative topics from a distinctly conservative point of view."


At least you got a detailed and honest answer. I was permanently banned from r/Republican and all I got was "leftist".


Idk if I'd call that a "detailed and honest answer", it's just copy/pasted from their sidebar.


I can honestly say I have never read their sidebar. This is hilarious. Calling out leftist views within it and emphasizing their bias in a sub notorious for complaining about censorship and echo chambers is just too perfect.


Only sub I've found where people have civil discussion about politics so far (I'm still quite new to reddit) is r/tuesday. They're self-proclaimed center-right, and most members hold very true to that.


Unfortunately, even r/Tuesday doesn't allow non-center-right thoughts to be discussed. I absolutely agree with you that it's the only civil, sane conservative subreddit but they also have really shuttered themselves up to make sure they're not "contaminated" by anything outside of what they've decided they want to be, like they're so afraid of possible alternatives entering their thinking that they have to hide from them. This has all gone down in the last several years - it's been really sad to see.


l have some sympathy for the dilemma they end up in. Unpopular opinions on a site like this are easily drowned out by brigading and maintaining the space balancing keeping comments open vs not being overwhelmed by the volume of outside posters can't be easy. I don't fully agree with the extent to which such subs silence dissenting ideas but I don't know that I have a practical alternative.


> I don't fully agree with the extent to which such subs silence dissenting ideas but I don't know that I have a practical alternative. Be open to ideas. I mean, moderators can still moderate and there is recourse for brigading. Tuesday literally has entire posts that cannot be commented on unless you have one of the "correct" center-right flairs. Being afraid of even having to hear dissenting ideas is NOT a good way to help our nation. Meanwhile, one of the moderators routinely posts "definitely not center right drivel" and because he's a moderator (who heavily moderates the comments countering his statements, I would also add), he's allowed to do so. I completely get that the moderators can moderate however they see fit...but they like to talk about how pro-democracy they are while being thoroughly disinterested in hearing about competing ideas. That doesn't aid democracy.


Maybe /r/politicaldiscussion or /r/neutralpolitics? I joined those ages ago on an old account, but didn't really participate too much, so idk if they're close to what you're looking for or not. But maybe.


Anywhere that I can ask questions and make points while being respectful without getting banned would be great lol. I'll check those out! I suppose they aren't on the front page for me to see since posts probably get equally upvoted and downvoted lol! Thank you, stranger.


Civil political discussion on the internet seems to good to be true, but I'll definitely check it out. The irony of my ban is that I was defending one of the reasonable Conservatives who was under attack because he believed being a Republican should be determined by your beliefs, not a blind allegiance to whoever is head of the party.


All I can do is hope that the whole "blind allegiance" thing is really just a belief shared by a small subset of keyboard warriors that make their presence known vs a huge proportion of the voting population. Idolizing people is never good. Idolizing politicians is even worse.


If you're looking specifically for "sane small-c conservative viewpoints" then yeah, there are vanishingly few places to look, and tuesday is one of them. I also try not to link to them, because their mods have struggled a lot with big surges of low-effort users shitting the place up when they get linked in big subs. r/neoliberal is a meme sub that often devolves into very detailed policy discussions. The discussion thread is a good place to go with questions.


I like how this guide starts from a place of anger and talking down to people.


I mean, the sub is named "conservative", so it makes sense that it's for conservatives only. The right wing depends on people being ignorant and voting against their interests. Poor people are much more numerous than rich people, so in a truly democratic nation where everyone always voted in an informed way (and in their own best interest) the left would win every time.


It used to be better but it turned into a Trumpy hellhole and during election time they purged a ton of users


They tolerated me for a while but then I got banned, I think trans rights was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I said that even if you don’t understand trans people, that it costs nothing to be kind (as the Bible would ask of us) and isn’t it good to keep the government out of our genitals? Their counterargument was that truth matters... never mind that they are on the wrong side of truth once again.


They banned me yesterday for pointing out the irony in supporting castle doctrine, but not for highest elected officials. Is what it is.


Then they get banned for posting and not having “flair”.


Even if flaired if they disagree they'll call each other leftists. Its kinda funny.


Maybe, but conservatives also just say whatever makes their argument look good in the moment. They'll pivot to the opposite position on a dime if the conditions suit it, all without ever losing a second of sleep. Some know they're doing it, some don't; none of them care. This is the main issue with political discussion these days. Conservatives aren't playing the same game as anyone else, so their rules are entirely different. And we're all forced to pretend this isn't the case and take them at face value, instead of pointing out the obvious reality that they do not believe in factual or ideological consistency -- all because of the centrist delusion that every position is equal and civility is good for progress.


I used to consider myself conservative, now when I look at the 'conservative' candidates in my area they are all so much farther right than they were 10 years ago. The Trump type has replaced the John Kaisch type and its ugly.


It is. And this highlights a really frustrating aspect of politics and media bubbles. We agree on this major issue. But with sentient-dryer-lint Tucker Carlson and pseudo-turtle Mitch McConnell are living their lives by sowing the attitude of division, we end up being on opposite sides of an argument that we aren't having. But I guess that's the entire point of this sub...


*sentient turkey rejected from his family's TV dinners


It's almost like those "pro-life" people who say that it's not their place to tell others whether they should be able to have an abortion or not. Right, that's what pro-choice means. You're not pro-life, you're pro-choice, but you want to sound better to your friends.


Not only that but arguing that something has become so ubiquitous that access to it should be protected.


Which is another emotionally driven and wrong idea about social media. Always on brand.


Love the argument for water as a human right.


This is legit a thing. When Twitter banned Trump I had a conservative buddy there arguing they were by this point a utility and thus shouldn’t be able to ban people they find politically distasteful. Really a weird stance to take for a small government guy.


Totally ridiculous, too. TV networks censor speech, and are far closer to being a utility than Twitter.


Are they closer though? I feel like it’s the opposite because there is a much higher level of access to Twitter for people to use as their own platform, while there is much tighter gate keeping to actually be on television.


I'm talking about (US) ABC, NBC, CBS. The major networks that have been around for 60ish years. They are (or were, at least) broadcast so that anyone with an antenna could view it. Local governments use them for distributing emergency information, and major Presidential speeches and debates are covered without commercial interruption. That was my thought process in saying they're basically a utility.


So..fucking..confusing. This is why they primarily stick to Guns, Sexual Preference, Religion, Abortion, and more Guns. Other stuff is confusing.


It’s not right, it’s what’s left.


Just a note that you can say "they". Besides the fact of gender, which isn't why I brought it up, it is awkward in a sentence to read and "their" just works so much better and smoother.


The conservative movement lost any semblance of ideological consistency years ago, but especially once they embraced Trump. Absolutely nothing about Trump was consistent with conservative ideology, his mode of operation was entirely focused on getting his way. The moment you had most of the Republican party running along with him on things like tariff wars, it was obvious that we've left the domain of political ideology.


Fake "free market" ideology gets dropped as soon as it conflicts with the actual "lick Trump's taint at every opportunity" ideology. Here's a MAGA boy whining for Big Government to nationalize Google despite lacking the political vocabulary to properly contextualize what it is he's asking for. Because at the end of the day, there is no worldview for these cultists. Just boots in need of licking. Fucking authoritarian assholes lining up to be serfs.


I swear there are a shocking number of people who are only conservative because they don't actually understand what conservatism stands for. Many would probably identify more with the left if their exposure to progressive ideas wasn't solely the caricatured strawmen invented by conservatives. Disappointingly however, there are also a number of people who are conservatives because they know exactly what conservatism stands for. Those people scare me.


Well, it's ok as long as they Haut use it as an example here and never actually believe it.


They love socialism when it's stuff they want.


shh if we wait long enough they will do a full 180 on the border next!


This isn’t an argument for net neutrality though. It’s an argument for treating big tech platforms as [state actors,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor?wprov=sfti1) at least when they host political speech.


So you just discovered what a UTILITY is, and why it exists. He isn't arguing Net Neutrality, he is stating that Social Media companies should be declared Utilities.


Thats not the argument they made though. It was the ability for water utilities to simply shut off water to someone they didn’t like


bizarro world


Fascists gonna fasc.


Reddit’s views of conservative are a little skewed IMO. Not all conservatives are MAGA hat wearing readnecks. Some of us want government intervention, safety nets, etc, but we disagree with those on the left to what extent. In my experience is moderate conservatives just want a little more personal responsibility, freedom, and accountability.


Ask them about net neutrality and water for Flint and they'll oppose those things in the same breath. Their hypocrisy and literal self-countering is lost to them


Yea they do it all the time lol


Growing up I thought this was a conservative view (because my family was conservative and I thought this way so I figured all conservatives did). Then slowly things around me weren't adding up... Anyways I'm independent now lol. I was out of the country and out of touch with politics from 2017-2019 and didn't know net neutrality had been "stopped" until I got back. I'm still salty about that.


nah man, pretty sure that's left


“Water is used by everyone” yeah now do the same with healthcare and education buddy Edit: thanks for the award!


Nestlé: hold my cocoa


China: Fuck our southern neighbors downstream, we damming all the rivers.


Nestle: Someone mention water?




Thats not even true. You can get your water shut off if you don't pay your bills. I live near Detroit and there was some big uproar about this in the news within the last couple of years.


That’s exactly what I was thinking! I remember in college there was an issue with the meter on our apartment and we inadvertently racked up a $4,000+ bill. The city came to shut off the water for failure to pay. Luckily the landlord wasn’t a dick and ended up fixing it somehow but water is NOT a guaranteed right, even to privileged white college kids in a liberal northeast city.


The water company (run by the city) was the only utility in my area doing shut offs during the pandemic. (No water. during. a. pandemic!) Even the internet companies weren't doing shutoffs.


Well same thing if you don’t pay your internet bill


If everyone is going to start working from home, is internet a necessity for survival?


>is internet a necessity for survival? It has been for years. I live in Kansas, a surprisingly huge amount of Kansans don't even have access to the internet at ALL.... ... but the state now has an additional fee that you have to pay if you go to the DMV in person to register your car so people have an incentive to do it online and not do it in person. Don't get me wrong, the additional fee is only $5... but seems like $5 might seem like a lot to people who's communities are so poor they don't even have broadband internet.... There are so many services, utilities, etc. that have been trying to move most if not all customer service interactions online. If internet couldn't already be considered a necessity, it will be soon Hell, I don't know how people can survive in today's society without a smart phone, let alone the internet.


"Wait, not like that!"


Honestly, I feel like this wasn't really a selfawarewolf, but a reasonable person trying to get Conservatives to connect the dots. Like, "Oh I see, you believe that something everyone uses is fundamental and necessary, and should be available to everyone eh? Like internet service (reference to Conservatives' war on the internet), and water (reference to Flint, MI and other areas where minorities are without clean water). In other words, I believe you're arguing theology with the choir. I've been noticing a lot of posts like this ending up in /r/selfawarewolves, that seem a little bit too aware to actually be the wolves


Not everyone uses social media anyways. I don't give a rats ass about who bans who for what reason.


They made the arguments for Title II which Trump made sure couldn’t happen. Folks they have no position.


Ill informed and willing to change their ideals to fit someone else's actions.


When net neutrality was in play a few years back, they staunchly opposed the exact position this guy is taking now. But I don't think he's ill informed. He gets it. He just always envisioned HIS team in control of the valves.


That sub was also for NN repeal back in when it happened. The entirety of right wing was. Their only position is to own the libs


I love your profile pic


Correct, they stand for absolutely nothing. They are the political party manifestation of a straw man argument.


Another demonstration of how full of shit these chuds are. They stand up and cheer when their favorite conservative politician says they're "Ripping up regulations", without even giving any thought to what these "regulations" they seem to hate so much are actually there for. Now, they see something that effects them (trump not being able to tweet) and they're all of a sudden very interested in the scary big government stepping in to regulate their beloved "free market".


It only matters when it affects them. We have seen this over and over and over again. Then they become accidentally socialist. It's infuriating.


Florida is going to be a good example of this and everyone interested should keep a close eye on Florida over the next year. Ron Gestapo Desantis has spent the past year whipping his methhead constituents into a lathered frenzy over mask mandates and voluntary vaccination. Several industries that use Florida as a hub, (cruise lines, airlines, destination and adventure travel) have said they will *require* people using their services to be vaccinated. FL is having a temper tantrum over this now and screaming about how they'll hold the line, but once that money stops flowing in watch how fast they change their tune. Same thing with KY and AL and their anti-LGBT laws they just passed. They'll be repealed within two years because it's going to end up costing these two already destitutely poor states millions of dollars when, not if, these industries pull out. The same thing happened in my state with the bathroom bill. Several large sporting events cancelled their events here, the bill was repealed within 6 months and our governor lost a reelection everyone thought was a sure thing.


The sad thing is that the suffering of others that results from not enforcing mask laws and from passing bigoted legislation is not at all what caused them to change, only the financial incentive. They don’t give a fuck about other people’s lives and well-beings, only the money.


Agreed. They pass these things to rile up their base and then repeal them when the money leaves the state. In the meantime the people voting for them only remember the first part....they're standing up for mAh fReEdUmBs! They ignore, forget, or are never told by radical right media that the policy didn't work and was actually detrimental to their state. It's like we're taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back with these asshats. Never mind that they literally make up "radical left" threats of violence and hatred in order to preemptively pass laws to combat the made up threat that ain't coming. Hence the 300 and counting voter suppression laws that have nothing to do with the "big lie" or are crafted specifically to suppress votes that trend toward the Democratic party and social programs.


> Several industries that use Florida as a hub, (cruise lines, airlines, destination and adventure travel) have said they will require people using their services to be vaccinated. Keep in mind that the state of Florida has no state income tax. It has property taxes but a huge chunk of revenue comes from sales taxes which are rather high. It basically outsources the cost of taxation to the tourists (and costs are pretty low so the higher sales taxes aren't noticeable to people from up north). These companies that you mention, along with The Mouse, own Florida. Politicians like DeSantis will talk a big game but the cruise lines and parks are in control of how business goes in the swamp.


When dumbass conservatives try to argue, "Akshually, the Nazis were socialist" they are usually telling the truth about what they like about Nazism: Only the dominant ethnic class deserves access to social protection and political power, and no one else.


There was a push to abolish the FDA a few years back because "Our food and drugs are all safe nowadays." Yeah, there's a reason they're safe: The FDA


This whole comment is from a goldfish-level memory hole. Are these the same people that were against regulating ISPs under Title II? And their CONSERVATIVE argument is that water, internet service, AND social media MUST be regulated in similar fashion? Their thought process doesn't even consider two steps ahead of what they're proposing.


They only realize the merits of something when it happens to them. Baker won't make cake for a homosexual couple? Go somewhere else. Conservative violated terms of service on a site? Clearly, we need some laws up in this bitch because this discrimination is the worst kind! The kind against ME! It's amazing how little empathy they have. It's like dealing with children.


Did everyone forget that while net neutrality protections were stripped under a Republican-controlled FCC, net neutrality had broad support from the population as a whole regardless of political affiliation?


It's wild. Every conservative I know was vehemently opposed to Net Neutrality. But when going over what it actually was and meant, they supported it, but would still say they opposed Net Neutrality. It was the same when I was talking to conservatives about the ACA and healthcare. Going through the main components of the ACA, they would overwhelmingly be in favor of it, but still say they opposed the ACA. They're just feed so much lies and propaganda from Fox and the like that they don't actually know what things are and so they say they opposed them. My dad's reasoning about why he opposed Net Neutrality was that he didn't want his speed and traffic throttled and didn't want Google and Amazon paying providers to throttle or hide their competition. He was also convinced that he'd have to pay extra and buy access to every website individually. It completely is not what Net Neutrality would do, but I watched the same Fox News programs he did and they were saying those exact lies. Fox really put up a graphic saying who wants Net Neutrality and who doesn't. Those fuckers said the only people or groups in favor of Net Neutrality were AT&T and Verizon and those opposed were consumers and small businesses and rural communities.


It's actually the situation net neutrality tries to prevent.


Funny how conservatives become downright socialist when the companies are going after them.


Funny how conservatives keep crying about big tech but any political action they take increases the power of large corporations.


Well, it’s because it’s only socialist when the Democrat Party does it!


Socialism is when the government does things I don't like.


“Socialism when government” Put it in words Conservatives can understand


Demonrat* FTFY/s


If you remove the buzz words Republicans are conditioned to hate, they would all agree with at the very least socialist stances and policies


That’s because like most Americans, they couldn’t define what socialism actually is if you put a gun to their head.


This bill will get shit-canned in the SC. This is nothing more than a "big-brain" attempt by Desantis to earn favor points from daddy Trump for 2024.


Yeah unfortunately doesn't stop our legislators from rubber stamping every damn bill DeSantis wants put through and the Supreme Court in Florida is notoriously conservative, it is why nobody is even bothering challenging the incredibly restrictive abortion laws legally. The best we got is the satanic temple providing "religious exemption" to workaround several of the laws.


I mean even the point with water utilities is incorrect. People aren’t getting banned because they’re not liked. People are getting banned because they break the terms of service. Try having water without paying your water bill. See how far that takes you.


Breaking a TOS is more like pouring poison or LSD in the reservoir, something no one would ever defend by saying, "He has a right to poison the water supply! You're all such fascists!." (Although I hope I haven't jinxed it by saying "No one would...")


I don't think LSD in the water would be the worst thing ever...


Still, municipal leaders tend to frown on it.


Not until they have some for themselves


Still not good. Nobody likes getting their drink spiked


Yes it would. Forcing drugs on people is a shitty thing. You ever had a bad trip? You'd have a lot of people having a bad trip because they wouldn't know what was happening to them. You'd have people thinking they were going crazy and going out of their minds. It would be cruel. Consent is important.


I know I know, I was hoping it would end up more like an "essence of flavor" situation from Futurama.


I would add try getting a well without permits and impact fees


Try using city water to farm pot in a red state. The water companies themselves look out for stuff like that and will abruptly cut you off of there's a sudden spike in usage (not speaking from experience, just dated a girl that worked at the utility company)


Just move way up into the mountains and instal a jet pump to suck water out of a glacial creek! Duh


Many countries which recognise access to water is a human right ensure that even where you do not pay your water bill, you cannot be completely cut off from water, and you will be given assistance in times of financial hardship.


The U.S. is not one of them.


*cries in American exceptionalism


In my third world country they never fully cut off water because access to water is a constitutional right, what they do is they just reduce the pressure to the point where it is basically unusable for non-survival things. You cannot wash yourself or the dishes, but you can drink it if you need it.


That's why I hate when people compare Twitter banning trump with the whole gay wedding cake thing, social media platforms are not banning conservative users because they don't agree with their opinions, but because they're breaking the terms of service.


“Why would shutting off water cause problems?” “Because it’s a basic need, dipshit. People would die.” “So basic needs for survival, like water, should be guaranteed?” “Well…” “If someone’s survival is threatened by, for example, a treatable but otherwise fatal disease, their treatment should be guaranteed? If their life is in danger?” “Now hold up a minute!” Arguing with these guys must be hilarious


Ajit Pai would like to enter the chat, but can't because his internet access to reddit has been throttled.


But...water companies do shut off water all the time. Not because of nonpayment either. They shut off water in rural areas where they say that its not profitable, forcing people to dig wells all the time so..... yeah.


Okay, now how would that logic apply to voter registration and polling site selection, genius?


its almost as if the free market doesn't regulate itself


This person also does not understand water rights.


Here's the thing. ISP's ARE allowed to selectively limit traffic to and from specific sites.


This guy doesn’t pay his own utilities.


Ok, I'm trying to figure out how Florida can remotely think this is a good idea? It's been federally recognized that private businesses do NOT have to serve all customers (ie, wedding cakes, adoption by same sex couples, etc.), so obviously facebook and twitter are not going to pay any fines and will take Florida to court- costing tax payer $$$ to be thrown away on an indefensible case. Are they really that desperate to prove a point that would actually undo all the hard work done to make sure 'religious liberties' are respected?


We're literally fucked. A: A B: But A is bad A: Okay, then what do you want B: A but only because I said it


> B: A but only ~~because I said it~~ now that it impacts me negatively


Keep in mind Trump did a lot of shit for years that would have gotten the average person banned instantly. It was causing a goddamn insurrection that finally gave him the harsh punishment of not being able to Tweet anymore.


Can you imagine worshiping the free market so much that you voluntarily make your life less enjoyable and harder.


But but muh free market!


>This is why internet service providers aren't allowed to selectively choose which sites they allow or the speed people can access at. It would be dystopian if they had that control. ​ huh. why did they kill net neutrality then? Cause I'm pretty fucking sure that was the whole point of that law.


Was coming here to say ISPs absolutely can and do selectively block websites lmfao


These idiots are starting to come full circle.


Don't tell them! They're almost gonna accidentally break up all the big tech companies bc of their victim complex. All libs and lefties pretend you hate it!! *Grr* I'm just so mad they would break up Google and Facebook and amazon. Pleaze nooo!


Still simps for the GOP


Nobody understands what free speech is smh. The right to free speech limits the governments power to limit your speech. Private companies have nothing to do with this.


I guess treating the water and filtering out unwanted and dangerous particulates isn't a thing in their world.


not to mention water as a right.


The lack of self awareness in that sub is just insane. They'll talk themselves in circles trying to prove a point and eventually just end up arguing with themselves. Fucking hilarious and horrifying that these people actually exist.


Basically, this guy formed an independent opinion before he had a chance to read the Daily Caller or watch Fox News to be told hold to feel about it. Don't worry, while this is a close call for him, I'm sure there will be a segment that will completely change the way he thinks and he will vehemently argue about the "libtard" policies he just posted there.


"Getting to post the n-word on twitter is a God-given responsibility" - conservatives ​ "Healthcare, shmealthcare. If you're not rich you can die on the streets (but don't do it on the nice ones)" - also conservatives


Is that a dash of nationalized utilities for good measure?


Beyond this being a dumb metaphor - Twitter is in no way an essential service like running water - most people don't want to use unmoderated or very lightly moderated spaces on the Internet and companies don't want to be associated with the kind of content those spaces create.


Anyone can *read* Twitter, bans only prevent you from *writing* on it. The water company absolutely WILL shut you off if you use their pipes to pump your shit into your neighbor's house.


The people who got banned on twitter probably pressed agree on "If I break twitter's rules I can get banned" or something like that


Guess what? Comcast completely disagrees with this shit. just ask the supreme court. they can limit anyone or any program at anytime. these new "laws" are a complete laughing joke and will be struck down. watch...


You have to pay an internet service provider, you have a water bill you have to pay, same for power. But, as far as I am aware, you dont pay FB, Twitter, or any other internet business they want to regulate. So he wants to regulate a free service. Kinda karen of him


I got banned from r/conservative today lol I then went on to ask about free speech and they muted me... I guess they don't see how they are the ones who do the most of the things they say are wrecking the world.


funny thing is, communities ARE denied water and food depending on if govternemnts like them or not


Also that argument is very much bullshit. The problem with hatespeech and the like is NOT that it will make people uncomfortable, it's that it makes discourse impossible. If you are a member of a marginalised group, having to have civil discussions with people who explicitly want to kill you, or support people and movements who explicitly want to kill you, is not going to produce an inviting environment for dialogue. These things act as intimidation, a bludgeon to silence certain groups of people by making them afraid to talk. Kinda like what happened with the whole gamergate thing (gamergate was a test of so many things) the point was not to have a civil discussion, it was to intimidate women and silence them under the guise of discourse. Free speech cannot be left to be used like that. Not because it is uncomfortable, but because it is inherently impeding the liberties of others.


He might have made the argument , but only because HE feels like he’s being discriminated against. And he had no idea he was describing net neutrality


Conservatives no longer have an ideology. They just want to be in control and will do whatever it takes to demonize everyone else.


Their ideology is 'Bezos, Elon and Trump are god, and we need to do whatever we can to appease them/make them more money.'


I would love to comment in that thread.. but I've been banned. I too am tired of the cencorship!


It really seems like putting the cart before the horse to make Twitter a public utility before we even make the internet a public utility.


Since no one really understands what took place here's the Lehmanns definition: Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally.  So if someone says and puts into law that cannot be tread upon you get your panties in a twist? Please go bury your head. E Q U A L L Y


>Companies are excluded from the law if they operate "a theme park or entertainment complex," from an NBC article. Pretty soon we'll have Facebook Land and Twitter-Sphere.


It basically comes down to how dare you tell us to shut the fuck up for once, that's only supposed to happen to "other" people...


This is stupid because he's confusing internet service providers (e.g. Comcast, AT&T) with web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter). Net neutrality only applies to ISPs. DeSantis' law only applies to web sites.


There's a lot going on here. I feel the sentiment is admirable but a lot of nuance is being left out. First, nothing prevents water companies for shutting off service to clients who fail to meet certain neutral criteria, such as failure to pay one's bill on time. So while it may be true that water companies cannot shut off service to those they don't like, this isn't anything like what is happening with social media companies. The terms of service are presumably neutral and generally applicable criteria such that if a user fails to abide by them, their service may be discontinued uncontroversially. Second, I am not even sure that there is a constitutional basis for water companies being unable to shut off service to clients even based on non neutral reasons. I take it the argument is implying that there is. It may be incidentally true that water companies don't do this, but this isn't because of a constitutional proscription against it. Contracts are drawn up and signed on to by the negotiating parties and I presume the stipulations that prevent water companies from engaging in arbitrary, selective provision of services are found in the contracts which are themselves publically enforceable. But if this is so, then again we come back to the acknowledgment that the terms of service play the role of the contract and the rules of service would then enjoy the same presumption of deference as a contract between parties. There is no constitutional barrier against private companies that provide amenities amplifying speech denying that service to others on a broad range of criteria that may not necessarily be neutral. Third, the first amendment does not require that government be compelled to give anyone a platform to speak even when we are talking about property under its control such as public parks and streets. I believe the consensus of the demands of public forum jurisprudence that has emerged is that access be equally attainable but not necessarily guaranteed. There are some forms of property that are historically protected under first amendment interpretation and these so called "public forums" are given this status firstly because they are government owned and secondly because if their traditional role played in the service of free speech. For there to be a constitutional application against the enforcement of terms of service by a private media company in the name of securing first amendment rights, the government would need to nationalize those properties and that would fly in the face of the free market doctrines of conservative politics.


Again, it's not that conservatives are hypocrites. It's that conservatives want whatever is best for them. (While liberals generally want whatever is best for everyone.)


What a fridge temp IQ take. Do they realize providers can shut you off for using torrent sites?


Everyone. Listen up. The first amendment is for the government. They can't arrested you or detain you or take any action against you for what you say. These companies have every right to say who can and can't use they're product. They're not a government entity.