http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-veto-bill-online-privacy/

>>59703780
We have this day everyday.

>>59703780
Oh look, the annoying orange is making special deals with his corporate friends. What were the odds of that?

>>59703780
>tell us whose side he’s really on
on the side of his jewish overlords of course

File: 1489269309629.png (184KB, 601x600px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 601x600px

>>59703780
Obama planted a PR bomb in 2016 for Trump. The bill being voted on has a whole bunch of bullshit that everyone wants gone, but Obama tacked on a clause that prevented the passing of a bill that fully legalised the selling of information. He knew the lefty media would be able to spin it and that retards would buy it.

Shareblue please go

>>59703852
Trump sure loves those jews. Pro Israel, anti palestinian, loves his jewish daughter and grandchildren. I bet if trump sucked a big black cock his retarded fanbase would say it's all part of the plan to wake up whites and destroy the jews.

>>59703877
This. In addition the bill they voted to repeal hadn't even come in to effect yet. Literally nothing is changing for us but all these faggots stil copy/paste their fake news for a few cents each time

IT'S ALREADY LEGAL FOR YOUR ISP TO SELL YOUR INFO

ALL THEY DID WAS ABORT A REGULATION THAT WASN'T EVEN GOING TO GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL NEXT YEAR

STOP FALLING FOR FAKE NEWS

>>59703877
>making stuff up

/pol/children infest this board every fucking weekend. Please fuck off.

>>59703877
>The bill being voted on has a whole bunch of bullshit that everyone wants gone
Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?

>>59703936
It was in effect previously, the FTC had the authority until they lost it in a court battle. The FCC applied the same regulation as before.

So yes, you're losing something.

File: 1485561361781.png (189KB, 1280x1122px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1280x1122px

This really cleans out my swamp

>>59704071
No it wasn't.

see
>>59704107

>>59703877
I was inclined to look into what I think you're trying to say, but you said it so fucking poorly, I don't even know where to start. Learn how to write, you fuckwit.

Trump is a normie when it comes to computers, he's 70 years old , he doesn't know what's going on

>>59704100
Read the entirety of the bill

>>59704107
This particular bill has not yet been in effect nor has it been used in a court battle.

>voting in the orange jew
>b-but muh MAGA

kek

>>59704143
Stallman should meet with Trump and educate him.

>>59704143
He's a normie when it comes to everything, he has no idea what he's doing.

>>59704094
this is a shill

>>59704133
Not only didn't he source his claim, he didn't even say what the clause was. He probably doesn't even know, he just heard something on /pol/ and is parroting in

>>59704133
Run it through a translator if you have trouble with english

>>59704150
>This particular bill has not yet been in effect nor has it been used in a court battle.
Like I said. The FTC had this regulation prior but it got gutted in a court battle. The FCC reapplied the prior FTC regulation.

Now fuck off.

>>59704170
why are you so aggressively agitating about the privacy clause if you're not a shill

>>59704176
So everything you're saying is irrelevant

>my mango Mussolini can do no wrong

File: 1489950574635.jpg (229KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1600x1200px

>tfw I'll start seeing ads for these soon

>>59704187
Shill for what? I really want to know what the cluase is but I'm inclined to believe it's just made up damage control non sense

>>59704150
I'm not going to read 200+ pages of the FCCs new regulations while trying to find out which parts you even have a problem with. Post what parts of the bill you have a problem with.

>>59703877
I though Trump was playing 4D chess, how did obama put him in check with a clause?

File: anime grill.png (190KB, 526x640px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 526x640px

>>59704194
Are you an anime grill?

>>59704209
>I'm going to shill and fight over a document I haven't even read
kill yourself

>>59704229
He's playing 5D Candy Land.

>>59704235
I don't know what parts you have a problem with. This EFF supporting it is good enough for me.

>>59704235

you're the one shilling for it without telling us why

trump is getting rid of that shit and keep the internet the way it's always been

>>59704235
If you've read it could you please at least give an idea what clause Obama put in that forces Trump to sign it?

>Obama tacked on a clause that prevented the passing of a bill that fully legalised the selling of information.
Isn't that the opposite of what you mean?!
Fuck this, it's too much effort to argue with /pol/ when they're "just pretending to be retarted"

File: lolibooru 132505 arm_support kyou_kara_ore_wa_loli_no_himo! lifted_by_self looking_at_viewer multiple_girls see-through short_sleeves translation_request white_legwear (1).jpg (767KB, 2250x1600px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 2250x1600px

>>59704231
me in the center

>>59704209
why are you acting like you know what you're talking about if you haven't even read it

>>59704259
not the same anon but whats he getting rid of?

Someone please explain what super secret cluase Obama snuck in that's forcing Trumps hand, despite Trump playing 4D chess

>>59704259
>trump is getting rid of that shit and keep the internet the way it's always been

That's not true at all. The FTC had the same regulation previously but it had to be reapplied by the FCC. And Net Neutrality existed before 2014 when the courts said the FCC would have to reclassify ISPs as utilities.

>>59704313
It's the fact Obama existed. Trump is largely signing a bunch of this out of spite.

>>59703780
why do US government transmissions look like they're stuck in the 90s ?

>>59704296
If there were problems with it then the EFF would have said something. That the EFF hasn't said anything about problems with it and the only people complaining about it are trumpfags who can't actually point out anything wrong with it is enough to convince me that there isn't actually anything wrong with it. I don't have all the time in the world to read every bill and ruling.

>>59703780
>>59703840
>>59703852
>>59704094
>>59704107

>t. Fear-mongering shills or just plain idiots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pUAmfw-Rk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ChtSIxYDc

File: tmp_4171-1488378254642283059532.jpg (126KB, 780x749px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 780x749px

>>59704209
You should read any legislation that you have any interest in debating or voting on, period. Otherwise, publicly dismiss your authority to speak about such matters because you are not directly informed.

>>59704235
Stop being a "I'm better than you shills" fuckwad and actually quote what you personally disagree with on the bill, or you may as well have not read it either; see above paragraph.

>>EVERYONE
Expecting anything more meaningful that a self-perpetuating retardation loop, like informative/constructive debate on 4chan is laughable. Enjoy the show.

>>59704378
>You should read any legislation that you have any interest in debating or voting on, period. Otherwise, publicly dismiss your authority to speak about such matters because you are not directly informed.
If there were problems with it then the EFF would have said something. That the EFF hasn't said anything about problems with it and the only people complaining about it are trumpfags who can't actually point out anything wrong with it is enough to convince me that there isn't actually anything wrong with it. I don't have all the time in the world to read every bill and ruling.

>>59703877
>but Obama tacked on a clause

perhaps you should go back to elementary school and have civics 101, president is part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch

or watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

>>59703877
So Obama made revoking consumer protections politically unattractive? Thanks Obama!

>>59704390
You are actually doing exactly what I'm saying to do by band-wagoning with a group like EFF. But your statement is unecessary and adds nothing to this "discussion" with you saying you side with their opinion. Their opinion is stated, we can go read it, hell, it'd be better if you link it so others can directly read it. If you want to personally add, and I'd prefer if you did over being silent, you need to inform yourself directly with the piece in question.

>>59704376
>b-but the left did it too!
The government wants privacy to be a part of partisan bickering. The Democrats strip away rights and the Republicans bitch. The Republicans strip away rights and the Democrats bitch. In the end, your rights are taken away by both parties.

But no, continue blaming the opposite team.

>>59704432
If that's what was happening your post would make sense

>>59704403
>the president has 0 influence over the legislative branch
Is this how libtards think their government works?

>>59704478
It's not that the left is doing it. It's clear that both the Bush-era Republicans and Clinton-era Democrats are responsible for this mess. But worrying about ISPs doing something like spying on your browser history that would literally cause most of their users to stop using their service and hence make them loose massive amounts of revenue is clearly less of an issue than the CIA and he NSA doing the essentially the same thing by copying all the data we post the Internet and storing it on some server somewhere and literally circumventing the law.

>>59704466
The only reason I posted in the first place is because I wanted someone to elaborate on their complaints about the FCC's new rules you fucktard. I don't need to have read the FCC's new rules to ask someone to actually elaborate on what they believe to be wrong with the new rules.

>>59704540
>But worrying about ISPs doing something like spying on your browser history that would literally cause most of their users to stop using their service and hence make them loose massive amounts of revenue
Normalfags don't give a fuck about their own privacy which is why it's so difficult for groups to defend it. Normalfags can only ever react to problems they cannot be proactive. Basically they only care when the problem actually manifests itself never before. Pretty much how Trump became president also.

Who gives a fuck. It's not like anyone practices opsec

File: 2017-02-06 20-20-55.png (62KB, 1117x571px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1117x571px

>>59704614
On that last remark I meant to add they could have voted for Hillary but they either stayed home or voted for a third party candidate which allowed Trump to win.

Hell the republican party could have come together behind Cruz or Kasich and prevented Trump from becoming the republican nominee.

I know a vpn can counter this but what about a proxy on your web browser?

>>59704614
>>59704741
>Hillary "The TPP is the gold standard" Clinton is good for privacy
>Ted " Evengelocon" Cruz is good for privacy
>John "Hungry Hungry Neocon" is good for privacy

Maybe you should consider the fact that all these people you just mentioned were in favor of the Patriot Act, which was the beginning of this mess.

And Trump becasme the Republican nominee (and eventually President) because he was the only one with an actual message to the Republican base (which he expanded to the white, working class or the Democratic base) along with a cult of personality. No one this election cycle minus maybe Rand Paul had either of those qualities in their actual message to their base and Rand dropped out really early.

>selling the TLD of sites I visit
go ahead, not like there's any info in that..
encrypt your connection & dns then rip ISPs

Getting rid of these privacy rules is good. They were made by a leftist administration so they go and it'll secure better competition and will be better for business. I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to fear.

>>59704879
Rand chose a really bad year to try and appeal to the mainstream

>>59704879
While the original patriot act was quite popular all around it continues to get less popular among the democrats with each renewal. At this point I believe it's pretty much kept alive by republicans and a few conservative democrats. If the tide ever shifts hard to the left it will likely just disappear or at least be rolled back even further.

lmao i literally called this shit back in december, search through the archives. i was saying it in a /ptg/ thread wondering why people were defending trump when his fcc transition team was headed by major telecom lobbyists/shrills. but people were telling me, 'trump would never do this he's for freedum!!'.

>>59705033
/pol/cucks and trumpcucks are retarded. They actually thought a billionaire zionist wouldn't want to make his business jew friends more money.

>>59705033
That's because trump supporters are, to a man, literally fucking retarded.

>>59704972
>While the original patriot act was quite popular all around it continues to get less popular among the democrats with each renewal.

>On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the Act:[3] roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

It's not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's literally an issue of the government overstepping it's bounds and continue to keep doing so .

>>59705033
>>59705045
>>59705076
Be less obvious

>>59705112
Trump is a zionist, that is a fact yet any other candidate /pol/cucks would have called a kike shill.

>>59705112
obviously both parties are run by lobbyists and the military industrial complex to a different degree, but democrats/obama supported net neutrality which is what we're talking about. are you gonna compare net neturality to the fucking patriot acts?

be less stupid.

>>59705143
Because they actively took money from so-called "kike-owned" corporations while Trump's campaign was mostly self-funded, with the rest being made up by small donations.

>>59705169
You were talking about the patriot act here >>59704972 You fucking idiot.

Facebook, google, and other companies are already selling your information. Why not let the ISP's get in on it make a little cash. It "may" lower internet service prices. Its not like the NSA isnt already watching the freaky shit you watch on your favorite porn site.

>>59705188
So pro Israel pro jew zionism is okay if trump does it? What a bunch of hypocritical fucks.

>>59705188
>You were talking about the patriot act here >>59704972 You fucking idiot.

That was me actually. You're talking to a different guy.

>>59705199
Fuck off shill, I opt out of those shitty sites.

>>59705205
>So pro Israel pro jew zionism is okay if trump does it?
Like Bob Dylan said: You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need

>>59705188
that's not my post, learn to 4chan. and regardless youre deflecting my point from how trump's staff and appointees are full of corporate/wallstreet shrills, not to mention how the republican party has been virulently against net neutrality.

>>59705223
It's still hypocrisy /pol/ actively defends trump and never once calls him out on it. Funny how I see people willing to call out trump on 8ch like 8/pol/, but not here.

why do these companies care about the porn i watch

fuck can't i just keep my fetishes to myself?

>>59705250
Yeah, I'm not doubting that. And I've been on 8/pol/ too, it's basically like 4/pol/ except of substantially higher quality (surprisingly)

>>59705232
>trump's staff and appointees are full of corporate/wallstreet shrills
=Maybe so, but at least he doesn't have an active debt to any corporation like any average politician. Who do you think funded Hillary Clinton's campaign along with Obama's, Mitt Romney's and John McCain's, the toothfairy?

>republican party has been virulently against net neutrality.
Why the hell do you want more regulations on the Internet? You realize that when bureaucracy invades a form of media, it's essentially sanitized and censored through mass regulation, like what happened to radio and TV through the FCC? I honestly think that's one of their better ideas, although that's not saying much given that they still have neocons in their midst.

>>59703780
>picked winners and losers among internet companies
isn't this how the free market works though?

if you peddle shitty products, customers stop giving you money?

>>59705232

What part of 'internet taxes', 'net neutrality' & 'Obama-net' are many of you not getting?
Follow-up question: When did the Obama admin EVER do anything for the normal taxpayer/consumer?
These Obama regs had NOTHING to do with privacy, and ALL to do with taxing the internet & backdoor net neutrality (IE squelching conservative conversation), with the intangible payoff to Google/Fakebook by giving THEM a near monopoly on YOUR on-line browsing inf.
You all love Obama-phones, right? How'd you like to pay for your local dead-beat welfare recipient's internet access too?

>>59705318
So you don't actually understand net neutrality and just believe it to be bad because all government regulation must be bad? Do you believe that government regulation of murder is bad as well?

>>59705223
>Bob Dylan
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 2017-01-26 17-13-41.png (912KB, 972x5420px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 972x5420px

>>59705318
>=Maybe so, but at least he doesn't have an active debt to any corporation like any average politician.
are we really sure about that? Has he even released his tax returns?

>>59705402
NN is basically internet communism. Everything made by the marxists obama must be destroyed.

>>59705318
>Why the hell do you want more regulations on the Internet?
Net neutrality is regulation on the internet in the same way that the first amendment is a regulation on free speech. It's not.

>>59705219
So I am assuming you have no other accounts with any other websites, you have a ".onion" email address and you spend your day shitposting on/g/ because you have your ass handed to you on /pol/ on a daily basis.

>>59705318
or maybe don't support either clinton or trump. or maybe don't go through mental gymnastic to reconcile trump's populist rhetoric vs his actions that shows how he's been committed to corporate/finance interests? maybe hold him accountable for that shit?

yes, all regulations are bad. who gives a shit about clean water, clean air, monopoly corporations (itself regulating the internet)., etc

This is very, very simple.

We have orange man being an asshole.

Then a fuckton of people come here to complain about it, because orange man is responsible for everything bad in the world. From racism to anti-semitism, to sexism to the shitty weather, all can be attributed to him.

So some other bunch of faggots come and say "it would have been the same if it was the lemon woman", to which everyone screams "hypocrites!". Now, the issue is not whether one does it or stops doing it. The issue is the reception. Many people know, if we replaced the orange man by lemon woman, or perhaps the good old coconut fellow, this thread wouldn't have the amount of replies it has. It just simply wouldn't. That is the difference.

So Orange man is being a dick, but he takes 3 times the average beating for it. He deserves as much criticism, not more, not less.

Oh boy, it's another Redditors don't know what net neutrality is and spew a shit ton of buzzwords and insults thread

>>59705418
He funded his own fucking campaign, where most corporations often fund the campaigns of various politicians that they want favors from. How do you think Clinton spent $1 billion dollars on her campaign?

>>59705447
>I specifically state all regulations relating to communications is bad
>yes, all regulations are bad.
Stop trying to invoke a slippery slope argument

>>59705851
>He funded his own fucking campaign
Did he? Where did he get the money from?

>>59705851
So you think that regional monopolies controlling what information you are allowed to access is a good thing? Unrestrained corporations are just as bad as excessive government regulation.

>>59705851
>He funded his own fucking campaign
No he didn't. Not only that, he charged his campaign for his own services.

>>59705882
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

>>59705929
Where does *his* money come from?

>>59705950
He's a billionaire m8. He made something out of his life and made a fortune in the real-estate business

>>59704156
>Implying Stallman wouldn't start a fight with Trump
>Implying Stallman wouldn't make Trump his waifu.

billionaires are good and for the people because they can fund their own campaign*

*with the help of former goldman sachs hedge fund managers facilitating their campaign and a financial empire interwoven into corporate/financial interests

>>59705968
>He's a billionaire m8
Is he though? Did he ever release his tax returns? Also doesn't that mean that if someone used one of his businesses that they're funding his campaign?

>He made something out of his life and made a fortune in the real-estate business
Well he did have a "small loan" of a million(or more) dollars starting out.

>>59706052
I've seen estimates go from 3.5 billion to 4.5 billion, but it's kinda clear he's a billionaire. Even if he did get a small loan of a million dollars,at the very least he multiplied it over 3500-4500 times, so yeah.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/

An his tax returns really wouldn't have much to say about that because, no doubt, he knows loops in the American tax system (or his lawyers do or both) so he probably pays not as much as you would think he does.

>>59706150
One of the reasons to disclose your taxes is to show your financial ties. His many businesses make it very difficult to know where exactly his money comes from all we know for sure is that he has businesses around the world. Anyone that stays at these businesses or pays for them to be established could be viewed as a campaign contributor.

File: 2017-04-02-12-21-29--607986741.jpg (9KB, 298x169px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 298x169px

>>59703780
Hey that screen looks familiar!

Here's the Hughes amendment.
Isn't democracy great?

>>59703852
/thread

>>59706237
>Anyone that stays at these businesses or pays for them to be established could be viewed as a campaign contributor.

Giving money through a business transaction != Giving money to a campaign. The former is the result of providing a service like in Trump's case, giving out the rights to his name to buildings across the world and constructing buildings. The latter is a direct gift to the campaign of an individual, usually with political motives. In the first case, the service is paid for right then and there., hence there is no owing anybody as you already provided said person a service in return for revenue. The latter is explicitly banned because it could pose possible conflicts of interest, due to the usual motive of wanting political favors in return for the bribe of sorts. Trump owning a business, providing a service trough said business and getting profit from various places across the world ISN'T a campaign donation: it's a revenue model.

TL;DR: A one-time payment for a service isn't a campaign donation. It's payment for a service provided by an individual/business.

>>59705851
when you're invoking a 'net neutraulty is bad bc moar regulations! moar beuracracy!!one!' that's essentially what you're saying.

>>59706409
>>59705894

Can you point to one time more regulations on telecommunications technology has actually benefited anyone except those that can afford the extra costs associated with the implementation and enforcement of said regulations?

>>59706463
Are you retarded? The second post you replied to already says what would happen to the internet without NN. Verizon even did exactly what that anon said when they blocked all traffic to 4chan back in 2010.

>>59705851
>He funded his own fucking campaign
>people actually believe this

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59706393
Campaign contributions are actually required to be publicly disclosed. There's no secret about where Hillary got her campaign money from. On the other hand business transactions are private by default. From my point of view if you're worried about corruption then Hillary would be less prone to it.

>>59705646

It's the defining issue that made me realize Stallman was right about nearly everything.

>>59705979
Stallman endorsed Bernie Sanders.

>>59706285
>Hughes amendment.
>muh guns

>>59706758
Bernie lost so Stallman would have wanted you to vote against Hillary in the general election

>>59706594
That's not what I was saying. Instead of trying to get net neutrality passed through corrupt politicians who will undoubtedly put some useless pork on there and handouts to their campaign distributors, it would make more sese for it to go through the courts
>>59706713
Not an argument

>>59706733
>if you're worried about corruption then Hillary would be less prone to it.
Then why is she in bed with Qatar, when she knows that they fund ISIS? Or the gifts she takes from Morroco? Or how she made a uranium deal with Russia as SoS? Hillary Clinton is EASILY the most corrupt person to run for president in the last 100 or so years.

>>59704929
>muh nothing to hide™
install cameras in your house and livestream your life to us please

>>59706817
That's some grade A logic right there.

>>59705646
Oh boy it's another everyone I don't like is a redditor shill episode.

>People actually voted for rand paul
>Unironically being part of the dude weed lmao party over the age of 18

File: snapchat.png (104KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 720x1280px

>>59706911

You already have that.

File: 1457488026525.png (66KB, 1357x974px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1357x974px

>>59707612
>people actually install that shit on their phone
holyfuck

>>59707612
Women should not be allowed to have phones

>>59703780
Oh shit, let me go post on Facebook and google what the bill is. I hate it when companies use my private information for a quick buck.

I can't wait until my gas mask comes in from Amazon so I can show those voyeurs a thing or to.

>>59707704
Kill yourself shill

>>59707725
Call me a shill but I'm a freedom fighter. I spend most of the day arguing against capitalism on twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. I'm sort of an expert on the subject.

Last protest at my uni I managed to get over 20 people to come and send invites to all their friends through snapchat. We know more than these so called "experts." We are the internet generation and we will protect it with our lives.

>"Democrats signed a letter calling on Trump to “tell us whose side he’s really on"

Alright! This has been fucking irking me for the past few months now. Why the fuck do dems. and leftists in general speak down to the president in such a blatantly condescending manner? Are they really that clumsy and tactless? Do you not want him to do what you want? Have never tried to persuade anyone in your life? It's almost like they're goading him to do it. How about adding polite arguments as to why it's a bad idea?

It all started with the "take away his phone/twitter" meme. Then I saw the "[insert country here] welcomes trump" videos where they engage in satire but end up flubbing it by directly dishing out an insult on his character or physical appearance thus completely ending the sarcasm and passive aggression into adhoms and dirty remarks . It completely ruins the flow of the skit.

Come on guys, we can be a bit more tasteful than that, can't we? It's so fucking cringe-y, crude, and really puts on display your arrogance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't criticize or insult him, but do it the right way. "Small hands, take away drumpfs phone"
is not funny.

File: george_wallace.jpg (86KB, 1122x1387px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1122x1387px

>>59707830
We need to bring back real old school democrats

>>59707830
It's turning the sides farther away from each other for sure.

I don't believe for a second Democrats care about my privacy so this outrage hasn't effected me much. Especially when I read about that "true news" government censorship office that Obama wanted at the end of his presidency.

>>59703780
>pbs.org
lmao

also the resolution wasn't even in effect. rolling it back will have no effect.

>>59707868
Old School Democrats or classical liberalism is now the right with the republican and right leaning libertarians.

>>59707830
>leftists in general speak down to the president in such a blatantly condescending manner
Because Republicans demand it. They don't listen to anything but Faux News speak. The difference when Democrats is they put some truth into it.

>>59707934
> The difference when Democrats is they put some truth into it.
You mean like how they blame Russia, a state with an economy smaller than Italy, for 'hacking" the election even though Michigan uses paper ballots only and the DNC servers were so insecure, that they literally had an email saying that they had been compromised and gave the new password in said email. Let's not forget the fact that Wikileaks has essentially been putting out the Vault papers which pretty much outright say that the CIA can spoof Russian IPs along with those of China. But wait the Democrats told me they were Russian comrades (even though they released shit on Putin himself) and they were traitors

>>59703780
Everyone has a Google and/or Facebook account that they authenticate themselves with on the majority of mainstream websites nowadays.

Even if an ISP wanted to sell your browsing data they wouldn't be competitive with the amount of shit that Google and Facebook have on you. Anyone that gives a shit about privacy will be using a non-US based VPN so this will have no effect on them. In the end, these threads are nothing but retards shilling about things they are too stupid to understand.

I read a few major ISP's officially state they haven't in the past nor will they ever sell user information for any reason now.

This really is a "let the markets decide" situation. This is how it would play out:
>Privacy concerns spark outrage
>company . A says "we will sell your info"
>company B says "we will protect your info"
Guess who wins? They all know this.

>>59708008
>What kind of logic is that, to be a congress and house minority, yet pepper every goal you have with no-so-subtle jibes and insults to YOUR president the leader of YOUR country.
Because he isn't. The American people are the leaders of this country.
You seem to want to give him a free hand in his retardation. That's not what Congress is there for. They're not a rubber stamp on stupidity, To say nothing is to give tacit approval, and why the hell would they give approval to things that obviously go against the interests of the American people?
They're doing their jobs by speaking out.

>>59708158
>and why the hell would they give approval to things that obviously go against the interests of the American people?
lmao

i hope you're a shill and not that naive/stupid.

>>59708158
>why the hell would they give approval to things that obviously go against the interests of the American people?
Because it's what they do, time and time again.
They preach "Healthcare is Socialsim" and so the US is one of the few advanced countries without the ability to keep its population healthy.
They preach "Guns are Freedom" and the US has a very high gun-death problem.
They preach "Car Safety is Slavery" and nobody wears a seatbelt.
Americans are mentally lazy sheep.

>>59708123
>Guess who wins? They all know this.
The company that happens to have the monopoly in that geographic area?

>>59708298
>>>/r/eddit
go back where you came from, you retarded faggot.

>>59708298
That's Republicans. Nobody said they were for the American people.

File: 1465970331203.jpg (584KB, 1576x1696px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1576x1696px

>>59703780
Better order your hormones now before Trump outlaws them, too.

>>59708298
>US is one of the few advanced countries without the ability to keep its population healthy.
And yet we have literal monopolies forming in various states across the country and premiums are sky-high because of Obamacare
>US has a very high gun-death problem.
You realize that includes suicides and self-defense related deaths, the majority of gun-related deaths right.

>They preach "Car Safety is Slavery" and nobody wears a seatbelt.
No one says that and a good majority of Americans wear their seatbelt, if not to get a ticket.
>>59708336
>Democrats and Republicans aren't on the same team for the most part
Why is it you trust the same people that voted for the Iraq War for the most part? Neocons and neoliberals have essentially corrupted both major parties into becoming nothing more than a business venture to make moolah from corporations.

>>59708405
also, the white gun violence rates are on par with european countries. of course they will be higher if you have a large minority of pavement apes and south american brown goblins who are heavily involved with drug trade and other criminal activities.

>>59703780
I hate Schumer with a burning passion but I have to agree with him on this

File: They're here.jpg (318KB, 928x574px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 928x574px

They're Heeeeeeerrrrrrreeeee!

>How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Blocking privacy eliminates the need for warrents, basically giving "them" access to everyones internet history LEGALLY.
No need to worry about that pain in the ass first ammendment. Private companies don't have to respect free speech.
Reminder that the government uses NGO's to do things it's not allowed to.

>>59707806
kek

>>59707806
ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>>59707868
>Dimitri Vail
RUSSIANS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>59708405
>Why is it you trust the same people that voted for the Iraq War for the most part?
Saddam was playing games with UN weapons inspectors. With all the shit he was pulling, could we risk that he had WMDs? He had them in the past. He USED them. He was adamant on producing them and thought nothing of invading his neighbors to try to put them beneath his boot.
It was the most Democrat war ever. Too bad it was run by a bunch of Republicans.

>>59707806
Call me a shill but I'm a freedom fighter. I spend most of the day arguing against communism on reddit and 4chan. I'm sort of an expert on the subject.

Last protest at my high school I managed to get over 20 people to come and send le pepe/sjw cuck memes to all their friends. We know more than these so called "experts." We are the internet generation and we will protect it with our lives.

>>59708123
>Guess who wins? They all know this.
the duopoly in the geographical region who collude so as to maximize each other's profits, an obvious failure of the (((free))) market """""""economy"""""

>>59704845
Depends on where the DNS lookups go, but it would reduce your footprint.

>>>/pol/
>>>/news/

>>59708798
yfw /pol/ shaped legislations concerning net neutrality affecting /g/ cucks

>>59708736
We didn't find any WMDs after we invaded Iraq dipshit. As it turned out, the CIA lied to the American public and the Vice President. We invaded a country essentially for false .
pretenses.

Also,
>It was the most Democrat war ever. Too bad it was run by a bunch of Republicans.
The problem isn't a partisan "Democrats good, Republicans bad" problem. It's that our leaders were so careless as to literally destabilize a whole entire region of the world, for no good fucking reason.

>>59705205
Trump also happened to be a Democrat prior to running for president.I never trusted this fuck, desu.

>>59709107
If he ran as a Democrat, Hillary would rig it against him if he got to the primaries. Even then, the very fact that he's a straight successful white male who doesn't care about social issues all that much angers most of the non working-class Democratic base now, because that's the way they've been since January 20th, 2008. look at Jim Webb and how he ended up. The only possible way for him to win the Presidency was through co-opting the Republican Party which is full of people receptive to his message and then expand his message to the working-class Blue Dog base of the Democratic Party

>>59708123
>when there's no such thing as company B, just company A
That's funny. You talk as if there's actually a choice in ISP.