On the other hand though, as Joker points out at one point, unless someone hacks their individual handsets in particular there's not too much risk, as the metaverse navigator was created and given to them by the prison warden.

Friendships are generally sought to provide companionship and support whilst going through life. Most people actually have very few good friends, studies have suggested that most adults only have around two close friends.

@Moana It's merely the way that they've got their web server set up, besides, it's not like it particularly harms the functionality or appeal of the site for most people...

<quote user="-KillerQueen-">I don't want to get political, but the NN repeal is actually good. It gets rid of the government trying to control the internet. The defense against the repeal was that the ISPs could throttle or block anything they wanted. But, under the NN repeal guidelines, they can not throttle or block without making a public announcement about it. They can not conspire at all. If an ISP does come out and say they throttle or block something, and a consume does not have something to switch to, the FCC can say that that ISP is a monopoly.</quote> Actually, it's not good news at all, there are several reasons for this. Firstly, net neutrality is not something new that governments implemented, it was the way the internet always operated. Everyone could access everything equally, and no provider or service would get preferential treatment. ISPs began suggesting that they should give preferential treatment, or limit services etc... in their pursuit of profits. However, this is clearly very bad for the consumer, and why the governments had to intervene in the first place. As well as this, even if they make a public announcement when they wish to throttle or block things, that's irrelevant. If it drives their profits, then there's no reason for them not to do it, and the FCC would not declare them a monopoly. Many areas of America have only had one ISP available for many years now, and they have said nothing on the issue, and very little has been done to try to encourage competition. Why would they suddenly declare an ISP to be a 'monopoly' because they are acting exactly as they have done in the past? They simply won't. This means that consumers in those areas are now made vulnerable to exploitation by the ISPs. As well as this, there's also something to be said for the freedom of information. The internet has become a critical resource that people all around the world and individuals rely on constantly, and often if something is not known, it is quickly looked up online. Allowing ISPs the opportunity to slow down, or even block access to information that they dislike or have some interest in preventing harms society, as they will no-longer have easy access to a good range of information, showing many opinions. Instead, they will merely be able to access either what the ISP chooses to allow, or have to waste time trying to access slowed resources. This repeal also grants the ISPs the opportunity to charge for access to different parts of the internet individually. For example, you may have to pay extra to access news sites so you know what is going on in the world. Not only is there the censorship and restrictions this suggests, but it would also raise internet access prices exponentially, meaning that the consumers will be out of pocket. In conclusion, it seems unlikely that the FCC would suddenly protect consumers after already acting in a way that directly harms them, and the repeal of net neutrality is a negative thing for pretty much everyone involved with the exception of the ISPs.