Re: #3 - Main news thread - conflicts, terrorism, crisis from around the globe

[UK AC]

Read the full transcript of Trump’s North Korea summit press conference

[img]https://www.vox.com/world/2018/6/12/17452624/trump-kim-summit-transcript-press-conference-full-text

[KneelB4Zod!]

Al-Masdar News‏@TheArabSource · 12 min.
Rebels have 48 hours to accept reconciliation in southern #Syria https://aml.ink/Rqq7S #Daraa #Quneitra

[KneelB4Zod!]

Springprincess‏ @TamrikoT · 15 h
Again, the Ukraine Armed Forces are at war with civilians! Today at 8:30 am the Kuibyshev district of #Donetsk was attacked by mortars from the positions of the UAF. The construction brigade was working at the time of shelling on Sophiskaya street. As a result 4 workers wounded.+

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfcagk9VAAELTnt.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfcagk-UYAEQVnP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfcagk-VMAAuGcJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfcagk-VQAAobh0.jpg


Springprincess‏ @TamrikoT · 15 h
In general, the eyewitnesses said more than hundredmissiles fell! The residential houses were damaged.
via Donbass war reporter Andrey Rudenko.
#SaveDonbassPeopleFromUkraineArmy

[ussuricat]

APU Special forces in the Russian military uniform prepare Provocation in Donbass
https://novorosinform.org/725777

[FoShizzle]

Thank you! I find this very interesting. I don't follow football, so I didn't realize the sport was quite so political.

Very fascinating times we are witnessing. We can only hope that more people rebel openly against the globalist agenda.

Well, we're seeing it everywhere these days aren't we? The politicization of everything. Seems like we can't escape it.

With football(soccer) it's also taken on another dimension. Soccer has grown so remarkably throughout the world during the past 10-20 years (much of it due to owners trying to make extortionate profits imo). You now have the top players in soccer earning far more than any of the top US sports stars, which never was the case with previous generations' sports stars. In this now globalized sport, the very best soccer players are now idolized by millions of people for what they can do on a football pitch and it follows that these people are now sort of seen like Ambassadors for their respective countries.

There is so much truth in that statement. I think this is why I've largely stopped watching tv. There is nowhere to escape people ramming their opinions down your throat. I used to love hockey, football (US), and basketball. Now I don't watch any of them unless my besties are doing a superbowl thing. And then I just go to hang out. I will say over the last couple of years, the ads for superbowl have become increasingly political in nature.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Murad Gazdiev‏@MuradGazdiev · 12 min.
Chronology of U.S. nuke deals:

Clinton makes deal with North Korea. Bush tears it up.

Bush makes deal with Gadaffi. Obama bombs Gadaffi.

Obama makes deal with Iran. Trump tears it up.

Trump makes deal with North Korea. To be continued.

[FoShizzle]

Good morning.



So they met eventually.

Martyn Williams‏@martyn_williams · 40 min.
Anyone else spot this? There were two "Donald Trump" signing pens, NK official came in and shined up the one for Kim, then at the last minute Kim Yo Jong pulled out her own per to use instead of the one provided. Kim used that and back it went in her blazer. (Pool video)

https://twitter.com/martyn_williams/status/1006416762936569856

Interesting.

That was interesting. I also noticed Trump couldn't shut up long enough even to sign the agreement.

[FoShizzle]

.


Like i said, israel is suffering inexplainable setbacks on a diplomatic and Hasbara level world wide daily now.

This is from this morning,and it's bigger than described in this Israeli paper.

This was unthinkable e few months ago.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-nabbed-in-philippines-are-tip-of-iceberg-in-alleged-fraud-gone-global/


Also ,have a serious look at this youtube video about this years bilderberg meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVma9kbCnM

There's big developments coming up,repercussions will be especially in (Eastern )Europe and Middle East,and Israel and the Rothschild Cabal will be at the centre.

.

Nice! I will watch this later today. Thanks!

[KneelB4Zod!]

Good morning.



So they met eventually.

Martyn Williams‏@martyn_williams · 40 min.
Anyone else spot this? There were two "Donald Trump" signing pens, NK official came in and shined up the one for Kim, then at the last minute Kim Yo Jong pulled out her own per to use instead of the one provided. Kim used that and back it went in her blazer. (Pool video)

https://twitter.com/martyn_williams/status/1006416762936569856

Interesting.

That was interesting.  I also noticed Trump couldn't shut up long enough even to sign the agreement.  

Guess Kim used a pen like this one:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Free-shipping-Novel-Magic-Auto-Vanishing-Disappearing-Ink-Pen-Invisible-Ink-Sign-Pen-Stationery-Black/32615753475.html?src=google&albch=search&acnt=479-062-3723&isdl=y&aff_short_key=UneMJZVf&albcp=266121556&albag=7593673036&slnk=&trgt=aud-30186416528:dsa-42862830006&plac=&crea=64152518596&netw=g&device=c&mtctp=b&memo1=1t1&aff_platform=google&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3v3YBRCOARIsAPkLbK7GCnV55gKLMFOjnDGerDLWlfvXshEyWeyBiyGupOGob002oXeJA7EaAnRlEALw_wcB



And yeah, Trump obviously lovest ot hear himslef.

[The Original Mind]

Good morning.



So they met eventually.

Martyn Williams‏@martyn_williams · 40 min.
Anyone else spot this? There were two "Donald Trump" signing pens, NK official came in and shined up the one for Kim, then at the last minute Kim Yo Jong pulled out her own per to use instead of the one provided. Kim used that and back it went in her blazer. (Pool video)

https://twitter.com/martyn_williams/status/1006416762936569856

Interesting.

Not surprising. Kim brought a private toilet so no one could test his poop.

[The Original Mind]

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts · 2 min.
BREAKING: Trump says he will stop conducting U.S. 'war games' with South Korea, ultimately wants to 'bring our soldiers home.' - @AP

Big news. Overall it looks like a successful summit.

[The Original Mind]

Bill Neely‏@BillNeelyNBC · 2 hod.
So far #KimJongUn wins- US has agreed to a long standing NK demand to stop Joint Mil Exercises with S. Korea.

Give me a break. "Wins" - this is immature commentary. The de-escalation of tension, drawing back of military forces, denuclearization, etc. is a win-win for everyone.

[The Original Mind]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

[The Original Mind]

Russian Market‏@russian_market · 5 min.
TRUMP SAYS MILITARY DRILLS INAPPROPRIATE, `VERY PROVOCATIVE'

- and expensive

Motoko Rich‏ @motokorich · 17 min.
Getting weirder. After Trump apparently cancels military exercises at summit, USFK issues statement that it has"received no updated guidance on execution or cessation of training
exercises” & plans to "continue with our current
military posture" until updated

Nothing weird about it. Orders have to be drawn up and disseminated through the chain of command.

[KneelB4Zod!]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

I tend to disagree. Nothing good about it at all. It was done on demand of the powerfull lobby group. It's powerfull tool how to control public opinion by private corporations. You say free up the market, I see concession to large corporations providing internet services. Nothing good about it at all.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Russian Market‏@russian_market · 2 min.
BREAKING Paris street on lockdown after reports of 'armed man with hostage'

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-paris-street-lockdown-after-12689880

[KneelB4Zod!]

Bill Neely‏@BillNeelyNBC · 2 hod.
So far #KimJongUn wins- US has agreed to a long standing NK demand to stop Joint Mil Exercises with S. Korea.

Give me a break. "Wins" - this is immature commentary. The de-escalation of tension, drawing back of military forces, denuclearization, etc. is a win-win for everyone.

We all know how agreements with the US governments end...

http://zodlikeproductions.forumotion.com/t21p810-main-news-thread-conflicts-terrorism-crisis-from-around-the-globe#4150

As soon as it will be possible US will scrap it regardless comitments of the counterpart I'm afraid. There is too long history of backstabbings from the US side.

[The Original Mind]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

I tend to disagree. Nothing good about it at all. It was done on demand of the powerfull lobby group. It's powerfull tool how to control public opinion by private corporations. You say free up the market, I see  concession to large corporations providing internet services. Nothing good about it at all.

A few points:

1. That a policy change is the result of lobbying is not always bad. Lobbying is essential to a democratic system - it is a mechanism by which entities inform the government what they want.

2. Corporations cannot control public opinion. They can restrict the expression of private opinion on a service they provide. This is entirely compatible with property rights.

3. If people do not want their expression restricted, they can choose a service provider who commits not to do that.

4. And hence we return to what I said: we need to further free up the market by ending the restrictions on competition in the existing market.

5. Furthermore, as a matter of some import, it is easy to avoid the restrictions that ISPs put on one's internet use - just change your DNS servers. Restrictions are typically enforced through an ISPs default DNS. Just change to google or some other DNS provider.

6. If you are making the broader point that corporations should be abolished - that they should not exist as legal entities - I agree entirely.

[The Original Mind]

Bill Neely‏@BillNeelyNBC · 2 hod.
So far #KimJongUn wins- US has agreed to a long standing NK demand to stop Joint Mil Exercises with S. Korea.

Give me a break. "Wins" - this is immature commentary. The de-escalation of tension, drawing back of military forces, denuclearization, etc. is a win-win for everyone.

We all know how agreements with the US governments end...

http://zodlikeproductions.forumotion.com/t21p810-main-news-thread-conflicts-terrorism-crisis-from-around-the-globe#4150

As soon as it will be possible US will scrap it regardless comitments of the counterpart I'm afraid. There is too long history of backstabbings from the US side.

Of course. I haven't seen anyone saying they expect perfect compliance by the US. But this is an instance of rational critique (i.e. citing America's terrible record). The "Kim wins" meme is pathetic and childish and totally baseless.

[UK AC]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

I tend to disagree. Nothing good about it at all. It was done on demand of the powerfull lobby group. It's powerfull tool how to control public opinion by private corporations. You say free up the market, I see concession to large corporations providing internet services. Nothing good about it at all.

Free speech being undermined and people possibly having to face monetary punishment for voicing a view that is unfavorable to the elite.

[The Original Mind]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

I tend to disagree. Nothing good about it at all. It was done on demand of the powerfull lobby group. It's powerfull tool how to control public opinion by private corporations. You say free up the market, I see concession to large corporations providing internet services. Nothing good about it at all.

Free speech being undermined and people possibly having to face monetary punishment for voicing a view that is unfavorable to the elite.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It is a property rights issue. You have no right to tell a corporation - or any other economic agent - what services they must provide you and how they must provide them to you.

[KneelB4Zod!]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

I tend to disagree. Nothing good about it at all. It was done on demand of the powerfull lobby group. It's powerfull tool how to control public opinion by private corporations. You say free up the market, I see  concession to large corporations providing internet services. Nothing good about it at all.

A few points:

1. That a policy change is the result of lobbying is not always bad. Lobbying is essential to a democratic system - it is a mechanism by which entities inform the government what they want.

2. Corporations cannot control public opinion. They can restrict the expression of private opinion on a service they provide. This is entirely compatible with property rights.

3. If people do not want their expression restricted, they can choose a service provider who commits not to do that.

4. And hence we return to what I said: we need to further free up the market by ending the restrictions on competition in the existing market.

5. Furthermore, as a matter of some import, it is easy to avoid the restrictions that ISPs put on one's internet use - just change your DNS servers. Restrictions are typically enforced through an ISPs default DNS. Just change to google or some other DNS provider.

6. If you are making the broader point that corporations should be abolished - that they should not exist as legal entities - I agree entirely.

Well, at first I think lobbying is just legitimized corruption. It's a trick how to avoid terrible statistics proving bribes and clientelism. Big pharma, MIC, corporate media, internet providers - that's all the same. It has nothing to do with democracy, they push their special interests through the government that should represent the people, not the corporations.

The same group of people now can decide what kind of informations will, or will not, their sutommers access. In other words sites questioning activities of big corporations will be banned and custommers won't even know it. As the corporations literally own the government then it gonna be used as powerfull political tool to control minds of the wide audience. I can't see anything positive about it. Actually, the result will be similar as with the EU laws. Washington and Brussels have different paths but the outcome will be the same. Hypothetically speaking the memes will be banned in the EU by the Brussels government and in the US by the private entities.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Yemen:

Al-Masdar News‏@TheArabSource · 4 min.
Large number of #Gulf-backed troops arrive in west #Yemen for new push to #Hodeideh (video) https://aml.ink/KQIkZ #Saudi #UAE

[The Original Mind]

As the most of the people stare on Trump and Kim shaking hands another important event happened this weekend and it is quite unnoticed because of the Singapore meeting.

US concept of Net Neutrality is officially dead.

Providers can now block web pages or slow down access. They can, for example, demand payments from web owners to speed up access again. Also they can offer faster connection to certain webs for extra payments. Also this could be very usefull tool to further online censorship and so on...

Good. Net neutrality is a violation of service provider property rights. Now the market revolution needs to be completed - free up the market, end the division of America into internet regions.

I tend to disagree. Nothing good about it at all. It was done on demand of the powerfull lobby group. It's powerfull tool how to control public opinion by private corporations. You say free up the market, I see  concession to large corporations providing internet services. Nothing good about it at all.

A few points:

1. That a policy change is the result of lobbying is not always bad. Lobbying is essential to a democratic system - it is a mechanism by which entities inform the government what they want.

2. Corporations cannot control public opinion. They can restrict the expression of private opinion on a service they provide. This is entirely compatible with property rights.

3. If people do not want their expression restricted, they can choose a service provider who commits not to do that.

4. And hence we return to what I said: we need to further free up the market by ending the restrictions on competition in the existing market.

5. Furthermore, as a matter of some import, it is easy to avoid the restrictions that ISPs put on one's internet use - just change your DNS servers. Restrictions are typically enforced through an ISPs default DNS. Just change to google or some other DNS provider.

6. If you are making the broader point that corporations should be abolished - that they should not exist as legal entities - I agree entirely.

Well, at first I think lobbying is just legitimized corruption. It's a trick how to avoid terrible statistics proving bribes and clientelism. Big pharma, MIC, corporate media, internet providers - that's all the same. It has nothing to do with democracy, they push their special interests through the government that should represent the people, not the corporations.

The same group of people now can decide what kind of informations will, or will not, their sutommers access. In other words sites questioning activities of big corporations will be banned and custommers won't even know it. As the corporations literally own the government then it gonna be used as powerfull political tool to control minds of the wide audience. I can't see anything positive about it. Actually, the result will be similar as with the EU laws. Washington and Brussels have different paths but the outcome will be the same. Hypothetically speaking the memes will be banned in the EU by the Brussels government and in the US by the private entities.

Of course lobbying is used immorally. I'm not disputing that. But the existence of corrupt lobbying doesn't invalidate lobbying as such. Consider this: The reason lobbying is corrupt isn't lobbying itself, but rather that government is so powerful and so authoritarian that it attracts corrupt lobbyists. When government can do anything and has a history of favoring interest groups, those who want favors will seek to manipulate it. Hence, if we rolled back government, lobbying would not be a problem. Case in point: Almost all economic intervention in the US is justified on the basis of an incorrect reading of the Commerce Clause. If that had been read correctly in the 19th century, all the corrupt economic lobbying we see would not exist, because government would lack the power to intervene in economics in these ways. Now of course, there is the question of how to reign in corrupt lobbying, and there are ways. But that doesn't invalidate my general point regarding lobbying.

Furthermore, consider this: The big US corporations lobby for net neutrality. Why? Because net neutrality restricts market access by smaller companies, who cannot afford the costs associated with proving compliance (among other things). Like other market restrictions (e.g. licensing), net neutrality is a mechanism that protects the vested interests of the corporations.

[KneelB4Zod!]

>>> shortened <<<

Well, at first I think lobbying is just legitimized corruption. It's a trick how to avoid terrible statistics proving bribes and clientelism. Big pharma, MIC, corporate media, internet providers - that's all the same. It has nothing to do with democracy, they push their special interests through the government that should represent the people, not the corporations.

The same group of people now can decide what kind of informations will, or will not, their sutommers access. In other words sites questioning activities of big corporations will be banned and custommers won't even know it. As the corporations literally own the government then it gonna be used as powerfull political tool to control minds of the wide audience. I can't see anything positive about it. Actually, the result will be similar as with the EU laws. Washington and Brussels have different paths but the outcome will be the same. Hypothetically speaking the memes will be banned in the EU by the Brussels government and in the US by the private entities.

Of course lobbying is used immorally. I'm not disputing that. But the existence of corrupt lobbying doesn't invalidate lobbying as such. Consider this: The reason lobbying is corrupt isn't lobbying itself, but rather that government is so powerful and so authoritarian that it attracts corrupt lobbyists. When government can do anything and has a history of favoring interest groups, those who want favors will seek to manipulate it. Hence, if we rolled back government, lobbying would not be a problem. Case in point: Almost all economic intervention in the US is justified on the basis of an incorrect reading of the Commerce Clause. If that had been read correctly in the 19th century, all the corrupt economic lobbying we see would not exist, because government would lack the power to intervene in economics in these ways. Now of course, there is the question of how to reign in corrupt lobbying, and there are ways. But that doesn't invalidate my general point regarding lobbying.

Furthermore, consider this: The big US corporations lobby for net neutrality. Why? Because net neutrality restricts market access by smaller companies, who cannot afford the costs associated with proving compliance (among other things). Like other market restrictions (e.g. licensing), net neutrality is a mechanism that protects the vested interests of the corporations.

Yes, if we rolled back. But it did not happen. Obviously, acting government is exactly the same, as the previous one, which was the same as dozens of others. My favorite, over one century old Roosevelt's quote proves it:

"“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” "

Regarding this specific case of web neutrality my argument is still valid. Private entities, mainly large, multinational or global corporations as Verzion or Comcast, will decide what kind of content you will be allowed to access.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Deir Ezzor:

Al-Masdar News‏@TheArabSource · 2 min.
ISIS corpses litter #Euphrates after Syrian Army wipes out terrorists trying to cross https://aml.ink/HWSE9 #Albukamal #DeirEzzor #Syria


Idlib:

Al-Masdar News‏@TheArabSource · 3 min.
Another attack on Shiite towns in northeast #Idlib foiled https://aml.ink/p7Gi1 #Fouaa #Kafraya #Syria

[UK AC]

Free speech being undermined and people possibly having to face monetary punishment for voicing a view that is unfavorable to the elite.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It is a property rights issue. You have no right to tell a corporation - or any other economic agent - what services they must provide you and how they must provide them to you.

You could say it's a property rights issue as well if you want, but you have to be blind to not see how many people are concerned that this is more importantly a freedom of speech issue. And it is, ISPs could block access/charge more to certain sites that are politically inconvenient to them or their interests.

Furthermore, consider this: The big US corporations lobby for net neutrality. Why? Because net neutrality restricts market access by smaller companies, who cannot afford the costs associated with proving compliance (among other things). Like other market restrictions (e.g. licensing), net neutrality is a mechanism that protects the vested interests of the corporations.

Regarding this specific case of web neutrality my argument is still valid. Private entities, mainly large, multinational or global corporations as Verzion or Comcast, will decide what kind of content you will be allowed to access.

Indeed. And it's not just slowing down speed to certain sites, but as you said deciding what content you are allowed to access and going as far to censor sites that you want to visit. Like you said, it's like the anti-internet freedom of speech EU legislation that's being talked about, except done by the US corporations instead.

Also, an additional thing is it could make other areas of the business market less competitive because of these ISPs imposing these higher fees onto start up businesses, giving an advantage to corporations in particular markets that would benefit from that.

[img]https://www.rt.com/usa/429434-net-neutrality-top-predictions-internet/



Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiPress

I’m calling on Congress to allow a vote to restore #NetNeutrality now

[FoShizzle]

Guess Kim used a pen like this one:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Free-shipping-Novel-Magic-Auto-Vanishing-Disappearing-Ink-Pen-Invisible-Ink-Sign-Pen-Stationery-Black/32615753475.html?src=google&albch=search&acnt=479-062-3723&isdl=y&aff_short_key=UneMJZVf&albcp=266121556&albag=7593673036&slnk=&trgt=aud-30186416528:dsa-42862830006&plac=&crea=64152518596&netw=g&device=c&mtctp=b&memo1=1t1&aff_platform=google&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3v3YBRCOARIsAPkLbK7GCnV55gKLMFOjnDGerDLWlfvXshEyWeyBiyGupOGob002oXeJA7EaAnRlEALw_wcB



And yeah, Trump obviously lovest ot hear himslef.

That was funny

[FoShizzle]

In all fairness, I do hope that this meeting last night will be the first step to restoring unity on the Korean peninsula. Kim is not an idiot. I just hope that the US gov't doesn't make any treacherous moves.

[The Original Mind]

>>> shortened <<<

Well, at first I think lobbying is just legitimized corruption. It's a trick how to avoid terrible statistics proving bribes and clientelism. Big pharma, MIC, corporate media, internet providers - that's all the same. It has nothing to do with democracy, they push their special interests through the government that should represent the people, not the corporations.

The same group of people now can decide what kind of informations will, or will not, their sutommers access. In other words sites questioning activities of big corporations will be banned and custommers won't even know it. As the corporations literally own the government then it gonna be used as powerfull political tool to control minds of the wide audience. I can't see anything positive about it. Actually, the result will be similar as with the EU laws. Washington and Brussels have different paths but the outcome will be the same. Hypothetically speaking the memes will be banned in the EU by the Brussels government and in the US by the private entities.

Of course lobbying is used immorally. I'm not disputing that. But the existence of corrupt lobbying doesn't invalidate lobbying as such. Consider this: The reason lobbying is corrupt isn't lobbying itself, but rather that government is so powerful and so authoritarian that it attracts corrupt lobbyists. When government can do anything and has a history of favoring interest groups, those who want favors will seek to manipulate it. Hence, if we rolled back government, lobbying would not be a problem. Case in point: Almost all economic intervention in the US is justified on the basis of an incorrect reading of the Commerce Clause. If that had been read correctly in the 19th century, all the corrupt economic lobbying we see would not exist, because government would lack the power to intervene in economics in these ways. Now of course, there is the question of how to reign in corrupt lobbying, and there are ways. But that doesn't invalidate my general point regarding lobbying.

Furthermore, consider this: The big US corporations lobby for net neutrality. Why? Because net neutrality restricts market access by smaller companies, who cannot afford the costs associated with proving compliance (among other things). Like other market restrictions (e.g. licensing), net neutrality is a mechanism that protects the vested interests of the corporations.

Yes, if we rolled back. But it did not happen. Obviously, acting government is exactly the same, as the previous one, which was the same as dozens of others. My favorite, over one century old Roosevelt's quote proves it:

"“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” "

Regarding this specific case of web neutrality my argument is still valid. Private entities, mainly large, multinational or global corporations as Verzion or Comcast, will decide what kind of content you will be allowed to access.

I totally disagree. Your argument is not valid - you haven't proved it to be so. For one, you can avoid blocks simply by changing DNS, which anyone can do for free. Furthermore, you haven't responded to any of the points I made countering your claims about corporations: they are for net neutrality, net neutrality gives corporations a competitive edge, net neutrality cuts out smaller companies from entering the market, net neutrality laws provide government (and thus corporations) with more legal power, etc. Furthermore, you haven't provided evidence that the big US internet ISPs are actually going to implement content restrictions (which, even if they did, is their right).

Overall, the pro-NN argument rests on a fallacy: that we can beneficially overcome existing legal overreach (e.g. corporate-government imposition on our lives) by creating more laws to fix the problem. Legal overreach is the very problem we face - we need to remove laws to correct it.

[Sponsored content]