How are our new policies going to affect the tech sector, /g/?

>>58763270
doubt they donated shit just by looking at how bankrupt they are

>>58763416
Nah man, they have a good net cash flow. Financial statements are full of posts that have nothing to do with cash

>>58763270
(SJ)T(W)ITTER

>> 58763270
America must be bombed for everything he has done.
- Feminism
- Gender
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Tumblr
- SJW
- Trap
- Cuckhold

You're disgusting!

File: eb7.jpg (123KB, 942x943px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 942x943px

>>58763577

Threadly reminder that the SJW bogeyman is a non-issue. The real threat is the aut-right, having elected Meme Man 3000 to terrorize the US for four+ years.

RIP America. 1776-2017. It was never great.

>>58763270
>How are our new policies going to affect the tech sector, /g/?
Probably won't.

The death of net neutrality will result in a +5 USD fee to internet based services, which people will pay and move on, because they're already used to getting constantly shafted with sneaky fee hikes. Life will go on, rms will weep.

Foreign tech will cost more, so all tech will cost more, because everything is made in CHIna, but it might spur manufacture here. Kinda doubt it though. I think you're less likely to see a rise in price, due to market sensitivities and more likely to see a thinning of product lines. So 3 types of camera from company A instead of 7.

The supposed changes to h1b will come in the form of -slightly- higher costs to companies. Those foreign smarts they need will simply get raises, so they stay as always, and more American workers will get hired (for low pay) to replace indian workers, because corporates simply WON'T higher until someone accepts the low pay, since they're the one in the position of strength now. Start ups won't change, because it's usually yuppie types from semi-wealthy us backgrounds who are sure their app will change the world.

>>58763732
This, except I think NN going away means that we're also going to see slower speeds on lesser known websites.

>>58763270

So twitter serves as a platform for the trump policies and speech. But at the same time, they are trying to help fight their policies.

It's weird.

>>58763758
I dunno, unless isps and companies conspire to hamper those companies' competition, it's probably not worth it for isps to "blackmail" smaller sites, since they won't have the money to pay.

>>58763577
>sjws have never elected anyone into power, all dems have basically been warmongering conservatives up until this point with repubs being the same, but with a religious angle
>they can't even get warren to run
>but /pol/ is so afraid of sjws for some reason
*shrugs*

>>58763790
Actually it's pretty easy to target them without spending time individually. Go after hosting services.
However, generally speaking I just think they're going to go after actual money makers like Netflix. Most ISPs/Networks are trying to shill their own services anyways.

>>58763796
SJWs aren't the problem because of their voting powers, but because of their informal power.

And look at how they killed Sanders' candidacy. It's not like they aren't someone's useful idiot. (At least he got his democracy beachhouse.)

>>58763817
>Most ISPs/Networks are trying to shill their own services anyways.
That's a good point, but would they even go after hosting services? I can easily see them all working together to royal screw ISPs too. It seems like it might start a war, so it might be better not to do that.

>>58763821
They have no actual power, they never will. Sanders was killed by the DNC.

>>58763875
It's going to be interesting to see how things turn out. In one way or another, we're going to get major clashes.

>>58763821
SJWs didn't kill his candidacy, his own retardation did. If you don't believe me, watch his upcoming debate with Cruz - Bernie is gonna get BTFO

>>58763602

they also invented atomic bombs, burgers and internet and those three are good

>>58764816
>military, food to feed militaries, military utility

America is literally nothing but a fiend for war.

>>58763416
Employees donated it, but I imagine that shareholders would be pretty pissed if the company actually wrote the check.

>>58763609
>The real threat is something I do not agree with.