Proposed Law Would Block Porn in South Carolina, Unless You Pay a $20 Fee

Isn't ICANN an independent entity where no one really has control? Hasn't it been this way for the past 20 years?
 
Last edited:
Here's some of the mumbo jumbo about ICANN from that same link:


David Conrad, ICANN’s chief technology officer, told us the advisory panel isn’t a mini-UN in part because it’s not a ruling body and any recommendation it makes must be unanimous--meaning any country can stop movement--though the committee can offer information or make suggestions to the board without a consensus.

More broadly, Conrad and other ICANN officials stressed, it doesn’t make sense to suggest a country controls the internet which, Conrad said, "is comprised of a set of privately operated networks which agree to exchange traffic using a common set of protocols. There is no central point of control of the internet at all. So, the idea that the U.S. is somehow giving up control through a contract that its entire purpose is to allow the administration of a set of identifiers is just sort of ludicrous."

Mueller, asked if Cruz’s claim holds up, said by phone: "There’s no legitimate way for him to get to that conclusion. What he’s doing is fear-mongering and trying to create a bogeyman, which is the United Nations." Mueller said the whole point of the approaching shift is to keep domain names’ governance away from direct government oversight.
Click to expand...
 
Obama wanted to cede control of our Domain registry to ICANN. We've controlled it for almost two decades. Republicans blocked it. Potential ramifications were neutralized.
 
Rico x Hood said:
Obama wanted to cede control of our Domain registry to ICANN. We've controlled it for almost two decades. Republicans blocked it. Potential ramifications were neutralized.
Click to expand...

What ramifications?

The internet community seems to be very supportive of the change.

For almost two decades, ICANN has performed the IANA functions under a zero-dollar contract with the U.S. Government, implementing policies developed by the multistakeholder community.
Click to expand...


So through what I know, there's no such thing as the Net Neutrality Act and net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with ICAAN. Seems like just a bunch of fear mongering since if we don't control it than means someone else will and they'll do bad things (which we obviously won't /s)
 
Last edited:
Says who though? Do you have a link or something?

Or is it just known that Obama was gonna do bad stuff to the internet?
 
That PH map of most searched for term is straight-up hilarious and savage at the same time. Straight ousting people and their deviance :lol:
 
HAWAII 5O said:
GlennVagmire said:
gunnascott said:
It's actually really good for blood pressure
Click to expand...

Bad as in mentally.
Click to expand...

How so?

You got Toys R Us selling violent killing video games. YouTube street fights and twerk videos. Radio stations and TV channels promoting music artists encouraging violence, sexual acts and infidelity.

Where's the logic behind that kind of statement.
Click to expand...

What does all that other stuff have to do with what he said? And how do you not understand that porn could be potentially harmful, especially with unrestricted access for children?
 
FrankMatthews said:
HAWAII 5O said:
GlennVagmire said:
gunnascott said:
It's actually really good for blood pressure
Click to expand...

Bad as in mentally.
Click to expand...

How so?

You got Toys R Us selling violent killing video games. YouTube street fights and twerk videos. Radio stations and TV channels promoting music artists encouraging violence, sexual acts and infidelity.

Where's the logic behind that kind of statement.
Click to expand...

What does all that other stuff have to do with what he said? And how do you not understand that porn could be potentially harmful, especially with unrestricted access for children?
Click to expand...

How do you not understand how what I posted actually has everything to do what he said.

Tell me how porn is bad for you? Sex is not an illegal act, unless it's forced.
 
Last edited:
Why dont you elaborate on what you meant. He said porn was bad for you mentally and you just listed a bunch of other stuff thats bad for you mentally. As if that negates something.

And porn is not sex, for one. There are entire research papers on the negative effects of pornography. Desensitization, objectification, side effects of abnormal dopamine stimulation just to name a few things.
 
Nawzlew said:
Rico x Hood said:
Obama wanted to cede control of our Domain registry to ICANN. We've controlled it for almost two decades. Republicans blocked it. Potential ramifications were neutralized.
Click to expand...

What ramifications?

The internet community seems to be very supportive of the change.

For almost two decades, ICANN has performed the IANA functions under a zero-dollar contract with the U.S. Government, implementing policies developed by the multistakeholder community.
Click to expand...


So through what I know, there's no such thing as the Net Neutrality Act and net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with ICAAN. Seems like just a bunch of fear mongering since if we don't control it than means someone else will and they'll do bad things (which we obviously won't /s)
Click to expand...

#fakenews

in #actualnews

FCC Republicans vow to gut net neutrality rules “as soon as possible”

The US Federal Communications Commission's two Republican members told ISPs yesterday that they will get to work on gutting net neutrality rules "as soon as possible."

FCC Republicans Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly sent a letter to five lobby groups representing wireless carriers and small ISPs; while the letter is mostly about plans to extend an exemption for small providers from certain disclosure requirements, the commissioners also said they will tackle the entire net neutrality order shortly after President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20.


FCC’s Ajit Pai says net neutrality’s “days are numbered” under Trump
"[W]e will seek to revisit [the disclosure] requirements, and the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding more broadly, as soon as possible," they wrote, referring to the order that imposed net neutrality rules and reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Pai and O'Rielly noted that they "dissented from the Commission's February 2015 Net Neutrality decision, including the Order's imposition of unnecessary and unjustified burdens on providers."

Pai and O'Rielly will have a 2-1 Republican majority on the FCC after the departure of Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler on January 20. Pai previously said that the Title II net neutrality order's "days are numbered" under Trump, while O'Rielly said he intends to "undo harmful policies" such as the Title II reclassification.
Click to expand...

More broadly, the Title II net neutrality order prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. The order also set up a complaint process to prevent "unjust" or "unreasonable" pricing and practices. The threat of complaints to the FCC helped put an end to several disputes between ISPs and other network operators over network interconnection payments; this in turn improved Internet service quality for many subscribers.

All of that is in jeopardy with the Pai/O'Rielly promise to undo the entire Title II net neutrality order. The process could take months, even if they get started right away, because of requirements to seek public comment. The Republican-controlled Congress could act more quickly, since Trump has opposed net neutrality rules and isn't likely to veto a bill overturning the Title II order. When either the FCC or Congress do act, the biggest question will be whether the net neutrality regime is replaced with a weaker set of rules or scrapped entirely.
Click to expand...


Bright side: Obama was gonna do way worse with da internet. Handing over da keys to da world, and whatnot.


Oh, what great timing.
 
Spiceman80 said:
Plus I don't see the correlation between pron done by consenting adults and human trafficking. Oranges and apples.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Spiceman80 said:
rollout said:
Feds watchin 
nerd.gif
  
Click to expand...
This I am fully aware of. I've seen enough TV shows and movies to know that we are all under surveillance. Not to mention how easy we make it for Go'vt with social media. I put black tape on my web cam, but I lknow I'm still exposed via my cell phone camera. Plus they can always turn it into a hot mic whether it is on or off. We are too complacent with things like this. Some of us say well I don't have anything to hide, or I don't have anything they need so I don't mind as long as it is for the greater good [terrorism]. The rest are either fighting a losing battle, or not fighting at all. 9/11 was the gov't sticking their big toe in our front door saying we need to do "xyz" in order to prevent this from happening again. Once we let them in, they take full advantage of it.
Click to expand...
Good. Stay woke, b.
Originally Posted by GlennVagmire  

Porn is bad for you anyway.
 

Bad as in mentally.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's only been helpful for me, both mentally and physically. It can be harmful if you don't have a balance of real sex to go with recreational enjoyment of pron- people can have a false sense of reality if all they know is pron. But that doesn't mean it can't be a relaxing and fun supplement to the real thing.
 
FrankMatthews said:
Why dont you elaborate on what you meant. He said porn was bad for you mentally and you just listed a bunch of other stuff thats bad for you mentally. As if that negates something.

And porn is not sex, for one. There are entire research papers on the negative effects of pornography. Desensitization, objectification, side effects of abnormal dopamine stimulation just to name a few things.
Click to expand...

Desensitization? Stop fapping.... but guess what, masturbation existed way before porn.

Objectification? Men BEEN treating woman like pieces of meat for the longest. Porn didn't cause that. You even hear it in rap songs. And see it in movie theatres.

Dopamine? Come on bruh.... you talking about people that usually had a mental illness in the first place.

I stated those example because South Carolina is trying to limit the viewing of porn. His response was to pass it because it's bad for you anyway. I listed other examples of what's also bad for you. You don't see laws made about them.
 
Last edited:
I didnt say that porn caused all those things, but those are just some of many negative effects. If you're truly interested there are many resources online that break it down in a scietific manner better than i can or am willing to in here. Seems like you just wanna be dismissive without really knowing what you are talking about. Its pretty well established fact.

And i see what you're saying, all that other stuff is just as harmful if not more and there arent similar laws blocking that stuff, and honestly i don't agree with the laws proposed in the op and doubt it would make much difference but to deny porn is harmful is just wrong.
 
Last edited:
By all means, educate me if you need to. I don't take any offense to it. In fact, I like it.

I'm just saying, it's a pointless law being made.

BUT.... the way I see it, I feel this is just another way for the State (soon Government) to monitor and catch sex offenders.

By disabling the filter or installing the device. I'd assume it would establish "probable cause" if anything were to happen.
 
Last edited:
Again, ramifications?

I don't get how we're "giving it away".

ICAAN was always meant to be controlled temporarily. It's been independent.
 
Last edited:
Rico x Hood said:
My bad DNS. Been typing dnc so much it auto-corrected.
Click to expand...
It's all good. Now, what does Net Neutrality have to do with giving up domain registry to ICANN? How is giving up that control the same as censoring the internet? And lastly what is the Net Neutrality Act? 
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom