@ForeverPie those are just news articles. News articles which provide no evidence that it actually happened are invalid.
.
The first one does provide an official written version of what Pai said... which doesn't make mention of "net neutrality" it says that when Title II was originally adopted he said he believed Title II's days are numbered which is effectively net neutrality's underlying structure, but is not DIRECTLY or ONLY net neutrality It is also not "when Pai set up the idea" that he said Title II's days are numbered but when Title II was first adopted (according to his words anyway).
.
.
... why am i even doing this? Title II is actually pro-net neutrality as i admitted in my last comment...
i guess i'm just bothered for no good reason that you suck at providing real valid arguments backed with evidence (uhm, no offense?)..... i should probably go do something productive...
Good day/evening/night to you, apologies for my attack on your argumentative abilities.
@ForeverPie your argument is still invalid. A mention of net neutrality, or even the extent of saying that it's days are numbered (please provide where he stated that. Claims must be backed up with facts) does not mean that the act is to destroy net neutrality.
.
However, I'm tried of this argument and have realized (read: had pointed out to me) something...
You could have proven me wrong simply by pointing out that "on account of" doesn't mean "for", and section 230 is just intended that if they filter content, and they miss something, they can't be held liable for missing that slippery thing.
.
And also, the net neutrality part of Title II would be Section 202:
.
SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges
for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of
communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting
or incidental to radio communication of any kind.
(c) Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall
forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for
each and every day of the continuance of such offense.
.
Edit: Also my previous comments have self-destructed, to avoid spreading misinformation.
@ForeverPie those are just news articles. News articles which provide no evidence that it actually happened are invalid.
.
The first one does provide an official written version of what Pai said... which doesn't make mention of "net neutrality" it says that when Title II was originally adopted he said he believed Title II's days are numbered which is effectively net neutrality's underlying structure, but is not DIRECTLY or ONLY net neutrality It is also not "when Pai set up the idea" that he said Title II's days are numbered but when Title II was first adopted (according to his words anyway).
.
.
... why am i even doing this? Title II is actually pro-net neutrality as i admitted in my last comment...
i guess i'm just bothered for no good reason that you suck at providing real valid arguments backed with evidence (uhm, no offense?)..... i should probably go do something productive...
Good day/evening/night to you, apologies for my attack on your argumentative abilities.
@ForeverPie your argument is still invalid. A mention of net neutrality, or even the extent of saying that it's days are numbered (please provide where he stated that. Claims must be backed up with facts) does not mean that the act is to destroy net neutrality.
.
However, I'm tried of this argument and have realized (read: had pointed out to me) something...
You could have proven me wrong simply by pointing out that "on account of" doesn't mean "for", and section 230 is just intended that if they filter content, and they miss something, they can't be held liable for missing that slippery thing.
.
And also, the net neutrality part of Title II would be Section 202:
.
SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges
for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of
communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting
or incidental to radio communication of any kind.
(c) Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall
forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for
each and every day of the continuance of such offense.
.
Edit: Also my previous comments have self-destructed, to avoid spreading misinformation.