Just out of curiosity...

Actually, I was thinking of the other one. But, sure, that too.

And then , just because its in the light , it may not deserve the other one to live up to its allusion to being of it.

Seems Net Neutrality meant the darkroom government decided which people could and which could not reach the public. It meant net-neutering. Like gender-neutrality is a fancy word for castration.

Why oh why would you copy and paste the whole page? That is barely readable. The majority of what you posted is not content, it’s noise.

Even assuming that the best way to make your point here is to parrot a point that was made elsewhere, there are at least two better options:

  1. copy and paste the actual text you’re trying to show people (i.e. not the number of posts a user has made etc.) by deleting the parts you aren’t trying to show people; or
  2. just put a link to the post you want people to read from.

Either of those would make the point you’re trying to make/repeat here clearer.

And why are you even parroting e.g. someone saying “‘Obolkonet’, hahahaha. Fucking priceless.” That’s the verbal equivalent of a Facebook like, what does that add to this discussion?
Good god man.

The distinction is that now instead of having a public government choosing what information is controlling your beliefs, you have the shadow, corporate government far more insidiously painting your worldview, against which you have no defense at all (which is why they exist).

At least the “corporate government” is a devil-we-know. Corporations’ motives are transparent as can be: they seek profit. The government is much less transparent, made up of elected representatives and life-tenure bureaucrats with motives from glory to greed to laziness to misguided principle etc.

So you know that one is the Devil and untouchable. And you suspect the other might be as well.

Let’s not stretch the colloquialism too far. Whatever flaws corporations have, the government is rife with flaws of its own, and corporations are predictable.

Also of note:
Expert polling suggests that the issue is fairly uncertain:
Here are the results from 2013 (for a question about net consumer benefit), and here are results from 2014, asking more generally about whether it’s “a good idea”. Both show significant uncertainty, with the former leaning slightly opposed and the latter leaning more strongly in favor. I’d summarize as mostly uncertain, more likely good, but not because of consumer benefit.

Seriously, what do polls really mean to philosophers?

I floated down that one on one of those tourist boats where they explain all the buildings in 5 languages as you float by them. Not bad.

Do you mean philosophers who have an appropriate amount of epistemic humility? They should generally defer to experts in fields where they are not themselves experts, and thus to polls of those experts.

Nullius en Verba.
Who took the poll?

“Nine out of ten doctors recommend…”

The respondents are listed by name next to their responses, with links to their bios.

Again, you very unscientifically divert. I didn’t ask about who responded, but who formed and took the poll. Polls are used very thoroughly for deception (usually political) via tricky wording, forced dichotomy, interpretation bias, limited audience, ignored context,… And you know that.

One cannot trust anything merely said to be “a poll”, even if the claim is “a scientific poll”.
[list]Nullius en Verba.[/list:u]

and reach out and ask themThis isn’t an anonymous political poll. This is a poll of named experts, whose answers are public. If you have any doubt that any person listed actually answered the poll as they did, you can literally look up their contact info on their faculty bios .

You’re getting hung up on the word “poll”, and ascribing to this specific poll a lot of flaws that apply to most polls you’re familiar with but that very clearly don’t apply to this specific poll.

No. You are not seeing my objection.

A person designed the poll. Such polls are the trickery. Those who answer the polls are generally not aware of the trick and thus their answers are irrelevant.

Science knows that … and so do you.

It still sounds like you’re inappropriately unjustifiedly applying things you believe about polls in general to a specific poll that is different in several relevant ways.

The question is on the page. The respondents are on the page. Their answers are on the page. You have all the information you need about this specific poll to identify the specific “trick”, so start talking in specifics.

To a philosopher, until you know, you don’t know.

And in this case, the probability of complete legitimacy is pretty low anyway.

Corporations own and fund the government [ all the individuals in it] not the other way around.