FCC purposely breaks own comment form after John Oliver segment

>“Sadly, it seems once more we the people must take this matter into our own hands,” Oliver said, announcing the FCC will once again invite public comment on their website. But, the FCC has made it much harder to comment this time. Oliver walked viewers thought the six complicated steps now needed to leave a remark.

>But, “if it seems too complicated, don’t worry,” Oliver assured. “That’s why we bought the URL ‘gofccyourself.com’,” which he said will take care of Steps 1-5. Use it to tell Pai “you support strong net neutrality backed by Title II oversight of ISP’s” Oliver said – that last part being really important.

>“Do not tell me you don’t have time to do this,” Oliver said, addressing everyone who posted “May the 4th be with you” on Star Wars Day, all those reddit fans of Donald Trump’s who trashed Oliver every time he’s lit into Trump on his show, those 540K who had enough time to comment on Beyonce’s pregnancy announcement, not to mention the 673 people who took the time to review the Grand Canyon on Yelp – seven of whom gave it a one-star review.

“>I’m calling on all of you, the internet time-wasters and troublemakers, to join me in just 5 to 10 minutes of minor effort. I need you to do this. Once more unto the breach, dear friends,” Oliver said, channeling Shakespeare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

>>137730
>though Oliver made a strong case that Trump doesn’t actually know what “net neutrality” even means
Neither does Oliver or his lobotomite followers, given that the concept of net neutrality they preach the "Net Neutrality" the FCC actually delivered are completely different.

Moreover, the current NN laws he's defending were championed by the "telecom dingo" he wouldn't trust to babysit his infant. When people who were against the then proposed NN regulations pointed out the conflict of interest and concern that regulating it like a utility would stifle innovation and lead to government backed monopolies, they were written off as conspiracy theorists who wanted to hand over control of the internet to "muh corporations". That anti-corporate zombie-like chant that the public has been conditioned to regurgitate every-time apparent conflict of interest like this arises doesn't help, but if given a choice between two "telecom dingos", it's amazing that the one who doesn't want the government backed utility-monopoly guaranteed to drive up cost and stifle innovation is considered to be the "serial killer".

So
>FCC disables comments after extremist propaganda show host who lies for profit, calls for e-jihad
But that's mainstream media for you I guess.

>>137757
Congrats on not watching the segment with the extended explanation of Title I vs. Title II.

Also, this is not mainstream media, nor is it extremist propaganda, nor is it lies. Show me where they lied if you can, but you can't because you didn't even watch it.

>>137757
Oh fuck off with guaranteed, if anything it's the other way around. With corporate heads determining things, the user will have little say, and decreasing power due to the stranglehold the big companies have over the net. At least with the government people have some say in how the government regulates the net, inb4 lobbyists, it's still better to have a middleman whose job it is to listen to the people, rather than letting the ones buying the vote just do whatever they want free of charge.

>FCC site is already broken from how many people are commenting
glad to see that there are still people who won't let big business take a shit on their freedom.

>>137758
>Congrats on not watching the segment with the extended explanation of Title I vs. Title II.
I don't need anyone, least of all John Oliver, to explain the difference between Title I and Title II. Pro-tip: For-Entertainment Cable TV shows are not good resources for technical knowledge.

>this is not mainstream media
He's a former 'The Daily Show' correspondent now with his own show on a major network with a major mainstream presence, who is referenced by other people in the mainstream media. This is because he is mainstream media. Why do you take so much offense to this?

>nor is it extremist propaganda, nor is it lies
Yes it is.

>Show me where they lied if you can
see
>For-Entertainment Cable TV shows are not good resources for technical knowledge.
If I have to explain to you why you shouldn't look to for-profit for-entertainment politically-biased nighttime comedy cable TV show for objective technical explanations and knowledge on a hot button subject, I'm going to make airplane noises while I do it.

>>137759
>With corporate heads determining things, the user will have little say, and decreasing power due to the stranglehold the big companies have over the net.
Which is exactly what will happen with the government granting a regulatory monopoly on the internet under the guise of "neutrality", which is what Pai does not want.

>At least with the government people have some say in how the government regulates the net
And by people, you mean corporate heads running the companies granted a monopoly via government regulation. But I guess it's okay because corporations are people too.

>inb4 lobbyists
Like Tom Wheeler, champion of the current NN laws Pai wants gone? Can't inb4 that. Sorry.

>it's still better to have a middleman whose job it is to listen to the people, rather than letting the ones buying the vote just do whatever they want free of charge.
Because the idea that those two categories are always mutually exclusive isn't dangerously naive at all.

>>137761
>I don't need anyone, least of all John Oliver, to explain the difference between Title I and Title II.
Yes you do because then you would have clue#1 about what you are talking about instead of blathering out your ass with a vaguely pro-corporate agenda.

Also, John Oliver is a comedian and HBO is not going to be the mainstream media no matter how much you scream and cry about it.

Good luck with your ignorance problem. You really shouldn't post until you know the difference between Title I and Title II but I know you will anyway.

>>137757
I can't tell if you are ignorant, have an invested interest in the cable companies, or are just shitposting.

>>137761
So just for the record, you think because people might elect somebody with interests in cable companies, that's more dangerous than letting cable companies regulate themselves? This is assuming you aren't actually stupid enough to think the companies that have already proven they can't be trusted without competition to be fair and equatable, would, out of the goodness of their hearts, protect your access to a free and fair internet.

>>137761
Okay time out, you're saying that John Oliver is mainstream media?

Dude, really? Let's just take a step back here. If all things Last Week Tonight is mainstream media, what isn't? No really, what is a trustworthy news source that isn't "mainstream"?

>>137766
He works for HBO and is a vehement left wing Hillary supporter as well as pro government mouthpiece. He's also a millennial doting comedian who uses strawman arguments and clipped up interviews to make himself seem like he has the intelligent stance on any argument. He's an entertainer.

>>137763
>vaguely pro-corporate agenda.
Please actually address my arguments, thanks.

>John Oliver is a comedian and HBO is not going to be the mainstream media no matter how much you scream and cry about it.
If it looks mainstream and talks mainstream and is referenced constantly in mainstream and people think it's mainstream= it's mainstream. Again, why are you so offended about this?
>>137766
And you? Of all things, how does this strike a nerve?

>Good luck with your ignorance problem.
Good luck with 10 grade.

>You really shouldn't post until you know the difference between Title I and Title II but I know you will anyway.
I'm not watching the show, no matter how much you shill and advertise for it, and yet I still understand the difference between Title I and II. The sooner you accept this, the easier your life will be.

>>137765
>So just for the record,
There's no record. This is 4chan. Stop soliloquizing.
>you think because people might elect somebody with interests in cable companies, that's more dangerous than letting cable companies regulate themselves
"For the record", do you think these are separate concepts? Because in reality and function, they are not.

>This is assuming you aren't actually stupid enough to think the governments that have already proven they can't be trusted with more power to be fair and equatable, would, out of the goodness of their hearts, protect your access to a free and fair internet.
FTFY. I'd appreciate you stop projecting your own internalized falsehoods onto me, thanks.


>>137763
>>137764
>>137765
>>137766
How many people am I actually talking to here?

>>137730
ITT: idiots arguing with retards.......

its like the special olympics in here, you may be right but your still retarded......

also john oliver = cancer..... i hate when entertainers get out of their lane and try to tell me how to live

>>137767
>He's an entertainer.
Exactly, calling him mainstream media is really hard to buy.

>>137769
>And you? Of all things, how does this strike a nerve?
You misunderstand. As the other guy pointed out, he's an entertainer. calling hims mainstream media is a joke. Also you failed to answer the question.

>How many people am I actually talking to here?
Judging by the number of posted at the time I'm typing this between 3 and 4.

>>137769
>There's no record. This is 4chan. Stop soliloquizing.
Semantics don't make you seem like any less of a corporate shill.
>Because in reality and function, they are not.
They actually fucking are retard. One is elected to their position by constituents, the other is beholden to nobody. One might decide it's better to listen to the people who gave them the job, and can take it away, the other will just operate in a way that maximizes their profits, because that's what's really going to lose them their job. But whatever, you refuse to even consider anything that pops the conspiracy bubble you've created around yourself, and instead of just questioning the government, attack it without considering the opposition in context.

>>137771
>mainstream media isn't for-entertainment
Hoboy.

>>137773
>Semantics don't make you seem like any less of a corporate shill.
That wasn't semantics This right here, this is semantics. But you're still an idiot for all examples given.

>They actually fucking are retard.
Excellent comeback, guy who doesn't know what semantics is.

>One is elected to their position by constituents, the other is beholden to nobody.
Odd, given they're often accused of being beholden to their shareholders, which are a form of constituent.

>One might decide it's better to listen to the people who gave them the job, and can take it away
Firings are generally much quicker than recall votes.

>the other will just operate in a way that maximizes their profits, because that's what's really going to lose them their job.
>the other will just operate in a way that maximizes their votes, because that's what's really going to lose them their office.
Hmmm....

>instead of just questioning the government, you attack it without considering the opposition in context
Tone policing isn't gonna get you anywhere kiddo. Stating that governments create monopolies with regulation isn't an attack. It's a functional description of what happens and has happened. You're taking offense to spooks.

>>137761
It sucks to know that Fox news feeds us all lies just like John Oliver from HBO.
http://projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

So, we can at least agree that Net Neutrality is a good thing and anyone trying to stop it is either stupid or has money in a cable company?

>>137793
The problem is that the only ISPs left in America are also either multinational entertainment conglomerates (cable providers) or multi-national wireless cellphone companies.

There used to be tens of thousands of ISPs in phone modem days. Now there are like 8 total, and most of those are regional.

>>137777
good goy

>>137769
>Please actually address my arguments, thanks.

will you refer to the first question asked of you, defend your argument where you say they lied?

>>137770
god forbid people with a voice try to help let people know.

I'm sure you also get mad and say nothing will ever get through because the little people dont have a voice.

>>138066
He's a cultural marxist spewing bullshit to the masses.

In no sense is this helpful.

>>138068
>He's a cultural marxist
According to whom? Mussolini?

>>138068
wow, you just took your first college course i see. lesson 1 of college kids "i know everything about marxism and leninism now because i slept through half a class on it"

>>138068
your argument was entertainers telling people what to do. and now its that hes a marxist?

the bait is real

>>137757
> stifle innovation and lead to government backed monopolies

Corporate shill, please.

How does allowing you to visit whatever website you want, somehow prevent the metanational Wall Street media corporations from “innovating”?

And the fact is that without Net Neutrality, we’re going get a corporate controlled monopoly of the Internet, where websites can only be viewed if they fork over bribes to the metanational Wall Street media corporations to prevent their websites from being blocked.

For example without Net Neutrality, if Hiroshimoot don't pay the weregild to the ISPs, 4chan disappears.

>>138073
What is it anout you commies? Your shit never makes any sense.

You think my Marxist infested college professors are educating me about marxism? Absurd. That's literally the LAST thing they'd mention to me. Stupid fuck.

>>138080
>Corporate shill
Wtf i love communism now

Jk i like eating

>>137770
>. i hate when entertainers get out of their lane and try to tell me how to live
Oh, no, someone is expressing their opinion. The indignity...

>>138091
> communism

Net Neutrality isn't "communism" it's actually the Free Market at work.

How is handing over the entire Internet to corporate powers a good thing for the People?

Without Net Neutrality, Wall Street will call all the shots and the Internet will become something like cable tv, where you’ll be restricted to only visiting approved big name websites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and such that can afford to pay the ISPs to carry their website.

What do you think will happen to 4chan in that situation?

>>138090
>implying you're in college

>>138099
It's funny that you think college is some elite program only geniuses can attend.

It's just school. You aren't special.

>>138098
I didn't say net neutrality was communism. I called a commie bitching about "muh corporations"

>>138100
He's not saying he's a genius, he's saying if you're not underage, you're probably retarded. Im sure this isn't the first time you've had that explained to you.

>>138100
he didnt say he was special, he was saying that you're "special", ill say it slower cause you dont seem to get it, he means you're mentally retarded.

>>138102
>>138103
Don't do this

>>138101
>I didn't say net neutrality was communism. I called a commie bitching about "muh corporations"

OK, but I'll ask again; how is handing over the entire Internet to corporate powers a good thing for the People?

>>138113
>the People
Oh my god what a commie. Protip: that sort of thing doesn't fly on this site bucko.

>>138114
Oh shut up Cletus. If you ahd a set of nuts at all you'd be ranting at the true commies on >>>/lit/ instead of baiting liberals in vain on this board.

>>138115
>>>/lit/ is conservative just like all the 4chan boards, you're just some arrogant libtards straight out of your marxist college classes who thought they'd come to 4chan to pwn us, only it was you who got pwnd. Please stick around, I love libtard tears!!!

>>138118
>>>/lit/ is conservative
lol no it isn't, it's full of ANTIFA redditors. you're either a moron or a newfag. Probably both.

>>138118
>us
There's only you here, kid. You're a long way from /pol/ now.

>>138120
>>138122

its just a reddit troll, its become less amusing to watch and the thread is already derailed. so I'm out, you guys should too

>>138125
It's the same troll who always posts here. I and a few others call him "Cletus". You can tell who it is because he always eventually rants about commies and marxists like it's his character flaw.

>>138114
> Oh my god what a commie.

Sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking with a 12 year old.

>>138146
That's the only kind of person you find on /pol/

>>137759
Still didnt watch the segment out of stuborness I see. The Docket calls for a more lax regulation on internet service providers, which allows them to show favoritism in terms content and services. There is no way you can justify putting net neutrality standards fully back into the hands of providers. The incentive to make your own

>>137757
Corporations love idiots that fall for the strawman that regulations stifle growth. They do not always harm growth. Regulations also provide us with the right to speak and carry guns. Regulations keep capitalism fair and just. Title two is the only thing stopping corporations from running away with our internet. You honestly think we could stop them without govt regs? Title one doesn't give them any power to keep the internet neutral. Read up or shut up.

>>138302
>Corporations love idiots that fall for the strawman that regulations stifle growth.
Declaring something is a straw man doesn't make it a straw man, especially since this isn't a straw man.

>They do not always harm growth.
"Not always", meaning you're already contradicting yourself in declaring it to be a straw man.

>Regulations also provide us with the right to speak and carry guns.
No, those are inalienable rights we have naturally. The US government does not "grant" rights, neither does the Constitution or any other law.

>Regulations keep capitalism fair and just.
Buzzwords

>Title two is the only thing stopping corporations from running away with our internet.
Except for the few corporations that will form a monopoly thanks to the government making it prohibitively expensive for anyone but said corporations from providing internet service.

>You honestly think we could stop them without govt regs?
They thrive because useful idiots like you believe gov't regs are the be all end all solution. "Pass another law and forget about it until it gets worse and forces you to deal with it again".

>Title one doesn't give them any power to keep the internet neutral.
"Net neutrality" laws somehow doesn't give them the ability to make the internet neutral? You underestimate the power of many governmental forces, namely punitive taxation.

>Read up or shut up.
I thought I was supposed to be told the correct opinions by a night time TV show comedy host and then bark & clap as I repost them on social media, like a well trained seal?

>>137759
>With corporate heads determining things, the user will have little say, and decreasing power due to the stranglehold the big companies have over the net. At least with the government people have some say in how the government regulates the net, inb4 lobbyists, it's still better to have a middleman whose job it is to listen to the people, rather than letting the ones buying the vote just do whatever they want free of charge.
Wow you people are zombie-like.

1. The internet is an open market where anyone can achieve a small business.

2. Now you want to give it to the government which is in league with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, 4chan/gammergate to silence smaller innovation and reduce clicks to 'wrong think' websites - to the point of OPENLY bragging about it! And openly bragging that they have full surveillance of your every key stroke and opinion that is both stored at the NSA in Utah and sold to sleazy corporations.

3. Middle man bureaucrats in Washington D.C. or London or wherever never actually listen to the general public, but the Communists are still convincing young people that they will if only you give over more power or influence.

HONESTLY, you people should be put in chains and made to work for the government because you don't deserve the rights - and therein - the responsibilities of being a Citizen.

>>138312
please learn how a network works before you shitpost anymore in this thread. The other ISPs of the world, some of them run by state owned telcoms, don't give a shit about your rigged """"free""""" market. They're going to block anyone who even hints at throttling their traffic. Good luck blatant nickel and dime money making schemes bilking your own consumer base.

>>138312
> The internet is an open market where anyone can achieve a small business.

It is NOW because the regulations insure that the ISPs act as only a gateway to the Internet, after which you can go to any website you like but if Net Neutrality goes away, Wall Street will literally control what websites you can see and you’ll be limited to only those corporate run websites who can pay the ISPs to carry them, such as Facebook, YouTube, etc.

No Net Neutrality means no more 4chan for example, as there is no way Hiroshimoot can fork over the thousands of dollars per month in bribe money to keep this website available.

>>138427
>No Net Neutrality means no more 4chan for example, as there is no way Hiroshimoot can fork over the thousands of dollars per month in bribe money to keep this website available.
Oh it will still be available, but you won't be able to access it at anything higher than 1990s DSL speeds, if nor 1980s BBS modem speeds.

>>138431
> > No Net Neutrality means no more 4chan for example
> Oh it will still be available

No, 4chan won’t be available because the Wall Street ISPs are looking shit can Net Neutrality specifically so they can charge a “carriage fee” for every single individual website on the Internet and unless your website is in the Big Leagues (like Facebook, YouTube, etc.) Hiroshimoot is fucked and so are we.

The Wall Street ISPs are trying to turn the Internet into something like cable tv, where users will only be able to get packages or tiers of approved websites who can afford to pay monthly carriage fees to the ISPs.

>>138435
>Wall Street ISPs
You can't just throw random words together that sound poignant. Words mean things. They have fixed definitions. You need to define your terms.

>>138427
>FCC's "Net Neutrality" means no more 4chan for example, as there is no way Hiroshimoot can fork over the thousands of dollars per month in "fair internet tax" money to keep this website available.

PUNITIVE TAXATION

>>138431
>4chan will be available at 56kbps
I had a non-free internet connection during an internship abroad. It didn't go at 56kbps, it wen

.

.

.

TIMEOUT

>>137777
Name one potential innovation that would be allowed only in a system without net neutrality. Because I can name a hell of a lot of downsides.

>>138444
>Name one potential innovation that would be allowed only in a system without net neutrality.
Widely accessible remedial English for idiots like you who can't form coherent sentences.

>Because I can name a hell of a lot of downsides.
Of course you can, you're incapable of non-inductive thinking.

>>137769
>Good luck with 10 grade
Stop posting about American politics.

>>138440
He probably just means shit like Verizon. It's not that complicated.

>>138453
>It's not that complicated.
Then just say Verizon or Spectrum, instead of making some mentally deficient and fumbling attempt at creating some ISP boogeyman?

Oh, right, because we have to wrap everything up in progressive buzzwords to sound more intelligent than we actually are to cover up our glaring lack of knowledge on the subject

>>138454
>Progressive buzzowords
>Wall Street ISPs
Maybe he is just saving himself a few characters to type.
2/10 try again

>>138456
>Maybe he is just saving himself a few characters to type.
Hardly worth it if you just come off looking like a zombie who can only speak in buzzwords.

>2/10 try again
Try not abandoning your arguments for petty side tangents.

>>138457
I didn't have any arguments in this thread.
>Zombie
You just the same shit poster from earlier. Why do you feel the need to fuck up /news/?
I'll read your response but I'm not going to reply to it.

>>138458
>I'll read your response but I'm not going to reply to it.
You're replying right now you big baby.

>>138446
>you're incapable of non-inductive thinking
what does that even mean
are you saying he is incapable of not using a basic form of logic?
jesus christ anon

>>138488

This guy >>138446 and this guy >>138457 (who may be the same person) are obviously shilling for the Wall Street ISPs and trying to derail the thread.

>>138310
>Declaring something is a straw man doesn't make it a straw man.
I didn't explain that clearly. Corporations consistently misrepresent regulations claiming they will stifle growth in an effort to convince idiots like you. Hence straw man...
>inalienable rights we have naturally. The US government does not "grant" rights.
Unless someone tries to silence you or take your guns away... Who protects you from that? God? Didn't think so...

>>137730
What kind of fucking ape is so corrupt they don't support net neutrality just because someone paid them off

>>139015
What kind of fucking ape doesn't support net neutrality just because he hates dem liberals and brown people.
Its so weird how much people want to shoot themselves in the foot just because they hate some people.

>>138440
Shit type argument being made here. His terms are pretty well defined. ISPS clearly refers to verizon, charter, etc. Stop being a dumb cunt, and give us one reason we should not have net neutrality

>>139056
Because cable companies are wealthy and therefore virtuous, and deserve to make more money without needing to compete or innovate

>>138576
>Corporations consistently misrepresent regulations claiming they will stifle growth in an effort to convince idiots like you. Hence straw man...
Still not a straw man. I am not a corporation and what I said is demonstrably factual. Keep beating that dead horse though, maybe you wont ever actually heave to directly address my argument!

>Unless someone tries to silence you or take your guns away... Who protects you from that?
I do, using my Second Amendment rights.

>God? Didn't think so...
God's not real. 7.62 NATO is real. Come at me, commie.

>>139056
>His terms are pretty well defined.
Which is why you're going to attempt to define his terms for him? Sure thing.

>ISPS clearly refers to verizon, charter, etc.
Only being able to name two examples without actually explaining the "wall street" aspect isn't helping you know. Hence, buzzwords.

>Stop being a dumb cunt, and give us one reason we should not have net neutrality
We should. The issue is the FCC's version of Net neutrality is not actually Net neutrality. How many more times must this be explained to your simplistic "the internet is a series of tubes the government must tax to ensure equality" ass?

>>139151

'God's not real.'

Never proven, stop stating that as fact

>>139153
>We should. The issue is the FCC's version of Net neutrality is not actually Net neutrality. How many more times must this be explained to your simplistic "the internet is a series of tubes the government must tax to ensure equality" ass?
0 because you're wrong, and further,, you're acting in the interests of the multinational media corporations and not consumers by perpetuating that lie.

What is there to gain from letting ISPs throttle bandwidth to sites that don't play their racket?

>>139221
If you're an ISP, money. Loads of money.
If not, there is nothing to gain, only to lose.

>>139188
The existence of god has never been proven, kinda puts it up there with unicorns and vampires.

>>139153
>We should. The issue is the FCC's version of Net neutrality is not actually Net neutrality.

Not that guy - but what would be effective Net Neutrality then?

>>139212
>0 because you're wrong
Well shit, guess that's that then because you say so.

>you're acting in the interests of the multinational media corporations and not consumers
You mean the ones who would have a government granted monopoly thanks to the FCC's attempt at NN? Nah.

>perpetuating that lie
How many more times are you gonna project onto me? It's tiring.

>>139212
On the tax thing, because you are too stupid to figure taxes. A private entity has to pay taxes to the US government, regardless of whether it is regulated or not. So we, the customer, still pay the fucking taxes the corporations pays to the government, their operating expenses and their profits.

The only fucking difference for Net neutrality is that THE LAW ENSURES we aren't selected to pay Unreasonable Profits. It has nothing to do with taxes.

>>139307
meant for>>139153

>>139269
So what cable company do you work for? That's literally the only way you could hold those views.

The voters themselves have spoken already. There's no going back no matter how many comments you make.

The voters knew the GOP was against net neutrality (in any of its forms). The GOP leadership has been against the concept from the very beginning.

The voters knew this before we voted. We all knew the GOP was against net neutrality. Anyone who didn't know this is an ignorant moron who probably should never have voted. But otherwise, you KNEW the GOP was against net neutrality when you voted.

Which means everyone who voted for the GOP voted against net neutrality. It's that simple.

So don't be whining and crying and bellyaching about it now. You knew what you were doing when you voted for the GOP. Now you're getting what you wanted.

You won. get over it, already.

>>139552
I think many voters were unaware of what it meant. I'm just speaking for my Dad, who thought Net Neutrality was a bad thing until I explained it to him. Afterwards he tried to say that one Trump has it explained to him he'll be against it. Some older voters don't understand what the term means, and I don't think Fox new and Breitbart are too interested in explaining it, since for some reason older people automatically think it's a negative term without looking into it.

>>139552
>Which means everyone who voted for the GOP voted against net neutrality. It's that simple.

No, it’s not that simple.

I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted _against_ Hillary and that meant Trump was the only option.

The Reps and Dems have gotten Americans in a position where if you don’t vote for Candidate A, Candidate B will win and fuck you over but if you do vote for Candidate A, they will also fuck over.

My #1 concern going into the voting booth was the Supreme Court and there was no fucking way I was going to let Hillary pick the next Supreme Court Justice, so even though Trump and Reps are fucking me over in other ways, it’s less of a fucking over then I would have gotten had Hillary won.

>>139552

Except elections aren't about single issues in isolation, they're about candidates who are a collection of many issues. You can vote for one candidate that disagrees with you on one topic but agrees with you on several others. You can also vote on a candidate who agrees with you on all but one topic if you only care about that one topic (commonly referred to as single-issue voters).

I don't think there's many who would consider network neutrality to be their single issue, nor do I think that topic would be on the top of the list given many other important issues to vote on, such as tax reform, the economy, and foreign policy. For example you have people like >>139560 who were more concerned about the Supreme Court nominee (though I somewhat disagree with his concern, I believe having a split Republican/Democrat government would have produced the most nonpartisan justice) and voted on that issue over network neutrality, which was considered a worthy sacrifice. And just like that guy, there were plenty of people who voted for Trump because they didn't like Clinton, and vice versa.

Therefore it is simplistic to conclude that because Trump won the election that everyone agrees with literally all his positions. For instance, not all Trump supporters are in favor of his wall initiative, such as those who actually live on the border. His supporters on the actual border instead favor broad support for ICE and border patrol instead of a static wall, which they view as ineffective. However they still voted for Trump because they liked his other positions, like on trade.

Not that even Trump himself understands this, since he seems convinced that literally everyone who voted for him is 100% behind everything he does and that anyone who complains must have been one of the losers who didn't vote for him. While he does indeed have continuing support from his base (over 90%), this only means they mostly like what he's doing, not necessarily everything that he does.

So what are you fighting about now

This used to be about some willing corporate croney trying to attack net neutrality

>>139671
The Trumplings have to bade their masters will, and their masters say net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".

>>139674
But Obamacare is a good thing.
You don't get to have the first highest rate of cancer diagnosis in the world and not make it up to your populace.

>>139671
People stopped caring about freedom when politics became a spectator sport. Instead of people voting for what's good for them they're voting for what will piss off the other team more.

>>139552
>The voters themselves have spoken already.
And they expressed themselves in majority against Trump.

>>140039
You realize it's not just Trump who got himself elected

His support is all over America, and we worked hard to make sure we got the votes in the necessary counties.

You're acting like people accidentally lost the popular vote. You're just ignorant af to how our elections work.

>>139970
>Obamacare is a good thing
Hahahahahahaha

Then why is it failing? Is America just too racist or what? Sexist?

>>140046
Which is why every person who voted Republican has ZERO right to complain about losing net neutrality. The GOP has ALWAYS been against net neutrality. Anybody who didn't know that before they voted is an ignorant moron who should never have voted in the first place.

People KNEW what Republicans wanted when they voted. There's no surprises. If you voted Republican and have any problem with the FCCs decision, you have NO RIGHT to complain about it now.

You Won, You Own This Shit. Get Over it.

>>140059
I'll start giving a shit about net neutrality as soon as somebody understands what it is.

Until then, idgaf about your bitching.

Don't waste talking points on me.

>>140047
It isn't failing, despite Trump's efforts.

>>140070
It is a good thing. Eat a dick

>>140081
See you don't even know what it is

You just think its good lol. Hilarious.

>>140105
net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

>>140070
It's not a complicated issue. All data is treated equally.

>>140140
>>140144
Right

And "the affordable healthcare act" is going to make my healthcare cheaper?

>>137757
>why do people that corporations keep acting like they corporations
gee I wonder
at least they're being internally consistent, it's just too bad that, like most people, they trust what certain people say without any proof
honestly sometimes I think everyone should grow up with one parent that doesn't know much but thinks they do, like I did
I learned at a young age even the person you trust more than anyone can be not just wrong, but say things completely parallel to the truth, or even the opposite of the truth, and say with full conviction that they're right
trust is for little kids, spouses, and complete and total suckers; if there's not evidence a statement means nothing

>>140146
That's a completely unrelated issue.
Anyone posting on 4chan who unironically opposes net neutrality should neck themselves. Your need to turn this into an all-encompassing left vs. right discussion reveals you're either just a shill trying to appeal to all the /r/thedonald newfriends, or completely deluded.

>>140105
Christ alive, all this projecting.
How does my opinion on the matter somehow imply I don't know what the matter is?
You are a sad, strange little contrarian. Happy to spout conjecture but unwilling and unable to provide substance for your opinions

>>140146
Yes that's correct.
And it has.

>>140171
It's a new meme /pol/ is spouting about this just trying to annoy people that don't agree because the position is fundamentally indefensible unless you're a shill, self hating, or osme other kind of sell out.

>>140171
>Happy to spout conjecture but unwilling and unable to provide substance for your opinions
When it comes to net neutrality I am an moderate

>>140183
I don't get it. It's almost depressing to think about. Shouldn't memes be like... Funny?

>>140185
You are a shill. Resisting net neutrality is indefensible.

>>139224
There are actual proofs for God, but theu are probably too complex for the small brain that is in your fedora

>>140229
Oh Jesus Christ go back to family radio.

>>140211
>You are a shill. Resisting net neutrality is indefensible.
Boy that's a convincing and totally non Orwellian way of putting that.

YOU WILL BE "FREE" AS WE SEE FIT. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. REJOICE.

>>140335
This is
I
Wow.
You're arguing that the government being unable to intrude upon your communication and basic rights is wrong because the government is the one enforcing the government

You're like a fucking black hole of stupid.

>>140335
This kind of trolling really should be deleted, but then again >mods ever doing anything

>>140211
>You are a shill
Hahaha god damn it was a joke, and a meme at that.

>>137757
>>137761

denial doesn't alter the facts. It just alters your stance towards them.

>>140402
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>>140462
So what? This is one of the worst memes, spouted by funless assholes.

When you watch a comedy show, do you think, "OMG HE'S JUST ACTING STUPID IRONICALLY"

You're real mature guy, i see you only post online for serious biznizz.

Do you have any other memes to share? Anything that'll make the internet less fun?

>>140185
>I am an moderate
In what regard? Either you think ISP's should pick and choose who gets more traffic space or you don't. "I think they should but not so much" makes no sense, that goes double if you don't have a dog in the fight because the only ones that profit from an ISP dictating traffic are the ISP's themselves. There is no benefit transferred to the consumer at all unless all the websites you want to visit are those the ISP has contracts with and those in turn don't depend on or link to other sites that don't pay the ISP for better speeds.

>>138068
So because he's a cultural marxist (a term that in my 7 years of undergrad and graduate education in polisci i have still read more about from shitposters than in any scholarly literature) anything he says must be bullshit?

>>140471
What the fuck are you talking about.

>>140572
Cultural Marxism doesn't even exist

>>138098
>it's actually the Free Market at work.
The Free Market doesn't exist and has never existed. You fell for the lie.

>>137770
>i hate when entertainers get out of their lane and try to tell me how to live
>elects an entertainer to be president

>>143450
What is this 2016