You trolls trolled yourselves. Lets see if you are as powerful as you think you are in fighting the government you helped create
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/07/12/even-4chan-is-opposing-the-republican-plan-for-net-neutrality/
>implying 4chan is one person
>>>/tumblr/
>>156962
Interestingly in the last few days /pol/ was mysteriously flooded with posts about net neutrality. Good thing buzzfeed and the Washington post were there to get the scoop!
>>156962
(((we))) are?
>>156962
I am 4chan, they never asked me my opinion
As if Democrats wouldn't do the same if they could? OP plz.
>>156989
fake news btfo again
>>156962
they say "even" as if 4chan culture hasn't always been one of the first and largest forces fighting against ISP takeovers of net neutrality since the beginning.
Is net neutrality really as big a deal as they say it is? Can I get an actual unbiased explanation? Without all the /pol/faggotry or buzzfeed shilling mentioned in OP
>>157057
Have you not been paying attention for the last several years? Telecoms try to push it through just about every year.
>>156962
But I'm against net neutrality.
I mean, maybe a standardized minimum speed should be something to strive for. But complete neutrality is retarded. If someone WANTS to block traffic from porn sites, or facebook, or whatever, they should have the legal right to enter into that contract.
>>156994
>they say "even" as if 4chan culture hasn't always been one of the first and largest forces fighting against ISP takeovers of net neutrality since the beginning.
Historically, yes, but I've seen enough retards on this site going against network neutrality on this site that I think some of them are actually serious.
>>157089
>If someone WANTS to block traffic from porn sites, or facebook, or whatever, they should have the legal right to enter into that contract.
You can easily just do that on the user end, you don't need to green-light your ISP fucking you (and everyone else) in the ass to accomplish that. This is about making sure your provider doesn't make that decision for you, and especially so they don't fleece both sides (ex. charging you extra for visiting your preferred shopping site and also charging the shopping site a premium to have higher speed access, which could effectively make small web businesses noncompetitive). Basically imagine the internet as TV where you have to buy package deals and you don't get all the channels unless you pay more. Who the fuck would willingly choose that system over the current internet where you get all the websites and your global speed across all sites is the only variable?
>but I can choose a different provider!
Local monopolies; outside of major cities there's only one, maybe two providers. Even in areas with multiple choices there's a strong profit motive to segregate the internet, especially if that money squeeze is happening behind the scenes (ex. reducing speed to competing streaming sites to promote your own [ISP owned] streaming site).
>>156978
Analy raped by Verizon.
>>157057
It is, without net neutrality telecomms companies are free to selectively restrict bandwidth to undesirable sites when someone tries to access them through their service, so no more 4chan, no more porn websites, and no more anything that isn't shoveling money over to Comcast or Verizon to keep site traffic flowing. In theory this wouldn't be a problem since you could just switch over to a different ISP that's fucking you less, but in practice most of the infrastructure is owned by 5 or so corporations and cannot be used by any other without consent, these corporations often have contracts with entire cities to prevent any competition from installing infrastructure of their own to compete. I've heard that they also tend to crack down in independent WISPs as well by burying them in lawsuits to limit competition even further. All in all, the Restore Internet Freedom Act will only benefit large telecomms companies at the cost of consumer freedoms.
I wanna see how antifa is going to fight this could-be-a-law, if it does decide to fight this though huehuehue.
It just gets more and more interesting.
Bless the US for unlimited entertainment given free.
>>156963
true and often overlooked; however, the article notes that the site itself is opposing the rule;
>Message boards across 4chan showed a special message to visitors Wednesday aimed at highlighting how the roll-back of the net neutrality rules could allow Internet providers to block access to the site
And give me 1 example of an ISP actually doing that...
It's never happened. You guys are literally trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist! Where was all this data throttling and censoring you scare people about before NN? That was only two years ago and as I remember, the internet was perfectly fine.
ISP's will never block sites like 4chan because they are in the business of making money. It wouldn't be a very smart business decision to start blocking popular sites now would it?
>>157277
This man is woke
>>157277
You don't block access. That's too obvious. You just slow down the speed to a crawl. If the customer complains, blame the site (and not your service) for being slow. Then suggest that they use [ISP]chan (either owned and operated by you, or by someone paying you to promote them), a superior, faster option to talk about Tibetan picture-books.
Also you forgot that there such things as localized monopolies, which ISPs benefit heavily from, especially in rural areas (where they fucking don't even bother to upgrade infrastructure despite government subsidies because fuck you). When there is no choice, you can get away with all sorts of shit.
>>156994
That was before the /pol/lution started, now this place is overrun with retards who can't stop sucking the invisible dick of the "free market"
>>157057
Here's a post from /g/ that should give you some idea what to expect if we lose net neutrality
>if you're wondering what ISPs will do if net neutrality is repealed, we already know.
>2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/
>2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
>2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/
>2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/
>2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12
>2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html
>2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. https://www.freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality
>2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place. https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet
>This is the future you choose when you shill against net neutrality.
>>157353
>that was before the /pol/ution started
Why do you faggots always pretend they're the invaders. /new/ always had a sizable population of Libertarians, and /pol/ has its paulbots. This site has always had racists and Libertarians, fucking get over it.
>>157089
That's not how the internet works. And the jewery that can stem from non-neutral internet is far greater than "just blocking some pr0n sites".
https://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/2684/show/warning-on-internet-transparency-and-neutrality-rfc-4924.html
>>156962
>Shills, get fucked
>>157277
>ISP's will never block sites like 4chan
http://www.pcworld.com/article/169079/ATT_Blocks_4chan_Stirs_Internet_Hornets_Nest.html
>>157358
Because 4chan was actually quite funny and was at least ironically edgy before /pol/ came along and started wielding influence with their band of 300 15 year old's and their ability to modify GIFS.
>haha bro, epic CNN/SJW take down amiright!!1!1!1!! XD :)))))))
Now it's a bunch of children who have a personal investment in their political identity and take any discussion about it as a personal attack.
>>157277
>You guys are literally trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist!
No. It's those who want to end Net Neutrality who to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
net neutrality has always been there and there is zero issues that will be fixed by ending it.
>>157378
This it used to be ironic mostly sure there was racisim but it was a tollerable amount and wasnt the main point. Now they just spew nonstop on everything.
Clickbait
>>157353
>all of these listed companies have government enforced monopolies
>WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO FIX GOVERNMENT REGULATION
>>158188
>>WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION
>MORE
The fuck are you talking about? This isn't about making MORE regulation, it's about maintaining an existing one that has existed since Internet is popular.
>>158253
>ISPs arnt already monopolized enough, lets allow them to force utilities to lay lines at reduced cost
>that will fix it!
>>158291
I don't think I am alone when I say that its preferable to letting those ISPs to be able to literally decide what content the end user has access to, and how much they can gouge.
The free market will not fix this, there is too steep an initial capital investment. If a juggernaut like Google could not find the profit in providing competition then I have very little faith in smaller companies.
>>158291
>lets allow them
>allow them.
>fix it
mother fucking AGAIN, Net neutrality is ALREADY IN PLACE! there is no new legislation coming to give more power to ISP.
All there is is the REMOVAL of Net neutrality who will grand the power to cable operators to fuck over users.
And no, deciding what goes faster or not does not allow to lay lines at lower cost, it simply allow to pump more money out of the customers.
And in no exiting reality does the end of Net Neutrality stop the ISP monopole.
>>158372
Not to mention these ISPs actively sic legal teams on any competition. They've fought tooth and nail against competition from Google in many cities where Google tried to bring their service.
ISPs are some of the most anti-competitive corporations in one of the most extremely anti-competitive markets. Removing net neutrality regulations would do nothing but exacerbate this while harming the consumer, which in this case is virtually everyone in the country.
It just boggles my mind that anyone who doesn't stand to directly profit from this--which is a pretty small list of the ISPs, that FCC pajeet turd who worked for verizon, politicians receiving money from ISPs---would support it in any way.
>>156962
A reaaaally simple way to form an opinion on net neutrality is to look at who supports it and who wants it gone. Who wants to end net neutrality? Already disgustingly profitable telecom giants who stand to gain even more ludicrous profits, and the people said companies are financing in order to push said agenda. Who supports the upholding of Net Neutrality? Literally everyone else.
Anyone who thinks the end of net neutrality would create "free market" competition is pants-on-head retarded and has no idea what the issue at hand is.
>>158412
>It just boggles my mind that anyone who doesn't stand to directly profit from this--which is a pretty small list of the ISPs, that FCC pajeet turd who worked for verizon, politicians receiving money from ISPs---would support it in any way.
The people who support "free market" capitalism are either rich sociopaths or brainwashed cultists. Even Adam Smith, the so-called "father of capitalism" said that free markets were a bad thing- his notion of capitalism was much closer to Keynesian economics rather than the crypto-fascism advocated by fucks like Friedman or Hayek.
I'd love to get rid of capitalism altogether but if people insist on clinging to it they should at least stick to the original idea instead of trying to make it worse.