Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

13
  • 100
    Don't feel like writing an answer? Tired of informative, well-considered debate? Hate not being interrupted by tangential opinions while you're typing? Join me in chat! But if you wanna post here, please do it in an answer; I'll be clearing comments on this question periodically from here out.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 22:52
  • 2
    Meta: assuming you might use that dismissible banner for other things in the future, I hope that the dismissal that's sticky enough to last the day isn't sticky enough to last forever.
    – Monica Cellio
    Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 0:52
  • 6
    It is a shame that the whole post just fails to address why a non US citizen is reading this, at least until the edit mentioning EBrown's answer.
    – Nikhil Girraj
    Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 6:21
  • 2
    Umm, it's July 13. not July 12 folks!
    – EKons
    Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 10:06
  • 9
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's about a past event and new answers can't really be relevant anymore. (Ideally, historical lock would be applied)
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Oct 31, 2017 at 12:04
  • 2
    Net Neutrality is in the news again. There is a question here asking if Stack Overflow (the company) will involve itself and/or the community in this discussion.
    – S.L. Barth is on codidact.com
    Commented Nov 22, 2017 at 12:25
  • Wanted to post an answer but question is closed. There is a statement in Russia's civic code basically saying that air cannot be sold i.e. it is illegal to ask for payment for doing nothing (intellectual rights obviously do not fall under this statement because author produced the thing he owns before asking to pay for usage of it). It means that any attempt to require payment from either client or resource to access some specific resource at full speed would be illegal (but it won't be illegal to throttle access to the specific resource indefinitely). Is there anything similar in USA?
    – Euri Pinhollow
    Commented Nov 27, 2017 at 20:20
  • Why am I not surprised that "50,000 net neutrality complaints were excluded from FCC’s repeal docket"? arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/…
    – SDsolar
    Commented Dec 6, 2017 at 1:32
  • Now the FCC has voted to repeal net neutrality, it's up to Congress to overturn the decision. But it doesn't look good.
    – Mast
    Commented Dec 14, 2017 at 23:59
  • Want to visualize the internet without Net Neutrality? See medium.com/@lex.sheehan/net-neutrality-illustrated-b4d23d9d5320
    – l3x
    Commented Dec 16, 2017 at 2:10
  • 2
    I was told there would be a zombie apocalypse as a result of net neutrality being... controlled by elected representatives of the people rather than an unelected body of bureaucrats? Goddamnit, where's my zombie apocalypse? I've been preparing for YEARS and I'm turning blue in certain parts.
    – user1228
    Commented Jan 9, 2019 at 0:52
  • 1
    I'm at this moment preparing a meal of chickens and rice - if you hear a knock on your door later tonight, don't answer it @Won't. No matter how much I tell you I'm fine.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jan 9, 2019 at 2:08
  • I almost think I support what you're saying, and I don't understand what you actually Posted. Your explanation of the problem is so full of technicalities, they cancel each other out and leave the whole meaning… uh… nothing obvious, anyway.… Could you re-phrase this, and take back your original?
    – Robbie Goodwin
    Commented Jun 12, 2020 at 21:41