Let's look at the stats: Net neutrality supporters: simple-minded

>>133385202
You Brockpuppets are really pushing this thing, huh? Consider meeting with your team lead for up-training.

>>133385474
???

>>133385202
>most intelligent republicans

Still dumber than most

>>133385202
>most smartest, most intellegent
this isn't even bait anymore

>>133385202
I have yet to hear a SINGLE valid argument against Net Neutrality. Why are you fucks pushing this anti Neutrality narrative so hard today?

>>133385807

t. Obama shill

>>133385974

>le this is bait meme xDDD

fuck off

>>133385974
>>133386014
>most smartest

>>133386153
you don't even understand how retarded you are, do you?
your english is giving me cancer. it's my third language and I'm better at it than you. muritard

>>133385776
>>133386014
>>133386153


Hey OP, still waiting on a reason to be against Net Neutrality.

>>133386644
wow., you know THREE languages, that's bretty good, my super super smart brazillian.

>>133386896
maybe the fact that only pussy-footed, bleedin-heart liberals support it.

>>133385202
Let's look at the stats:
Net neutrality opponents: the very special interests donald fights against
Net neutrality supporters: literally everyone

>Net neutrality
The internet is the cyber international waters of technology. This will do nothing. And there are always proxies.

>>133385202
>Trusting politicians


Oh looks like I am pro now

File: demsgop.jpg (1MB, 1852x2048px)

1MB, 1852x2048px

>>133386896
He's just shitposting and probably a supporter imitating an opponent and using bad English/banter as a false flag.

But really it's because a lot of the lower class and fattest, shartiest types in the US make everything partisan, so they wait to see if a certain scientific or technological issue is supported more by a certain party, and if so, oppose or support it on those grounds, not based on non-partisan metrics like White people do.

Politicians with lobbying connections to telecommunications giants obviously are the ones going against Net Neutrality, and statistically there are more Republicans

>>133385202
>implying ted cruz' words are worth anything
i thought you fucks thought he was a sniveling, sleazy rat.

>>133388177
Your internet is already dead. The only thing that ISPs will do by throttling peoples internet services is wake them up to how their internet ACTUALLY works. Then maybe they'll be able to demand better service from them for once. If you want the internet to be exactly as fast and shitty as it is already for the next 100 years then Net Neutrality is fantastic.

Once people get more used to using peer to peer services and the whole "cloud computing" meme dies the internet will be better off for it no matter what the ISPs do.

Net neutrality benefits billion dollar companies just as much as it does the little guy. Both suck but I'd rather keep what we have now

>>133385202
Shill. The Internet is fine how it is. Do not mess with the Internet. Do not mess with vidya.

>>133385202
>only the most smartest, most intellegent of America's Republicans
But the Republicans are completely fucking retarded and have been for decades. Being called "smartest Republican" is about as good a compliment as being called the "smartest ant".

>>133385202

Fuck El Rato!

>>133385202
Why yes, I want to pay for packets of websites and be restricted from others instead of having access to everything.

>>133387061
>the opposition is always wrong
what a retarded statement

>>133387061
Do you have any actual reasons to be against it?

>>133386896

You're right the American government should control and monitor access to all content on the internet

>>133385202
shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill

>>133386896
Look at all the companies that openly support Net Neutrality.

Need a list? Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter, etc., all support Net Neutrality. If fucking Facebook, Google, and Twitter of all the companies in the world support something, then you know that something is 100% bad for the people and only good for the companies that support it in the first place.

People unironically believe that repealing Net Neutrality is automatically going to allow companies like Comcast and Time Warner to fuck us in the ass by charging a billion dollars just so they can browse Facebook, which couldn't be any more further from the truth. The reality is that ISPs will finally be able to charge companies like Google and Netflix a fair price for the immense amount of traffic they take up--without any cost to the end user. These companies make billions of dollars by datamining whereas ISPs don't get the chance to do so because of federal regulations, and instead of datamining users (which they know their users would 100% be opposed to), they would rather force these Silicon Valley giants to sign contracts that would allow ISPs to rake in the amount of money they finally deserve so they can upgrade infrastructure all across the United States and bring uncapped, symmetrical, 10 Gbit fiber internet to every home in America at a reasonable price.

File: index.jpg (40KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x338px

>>133389412
Whoever wins, we lose.

>>133386004
Why would your landlord be allowed for charging additional money to allow you to go to a pub?

>>133389412
>so they can upgrade infrastructure all across the United States and bring uncapped, symmetrical, 10 Gbit fiber internet to every home in America at a reasonable price.
That is so incredibly optimistic that it borders on delusion

fucking americans trying to destroy the internet for everyone yet again

>>133385202
>only the most intelligent of former Verizon lobbyists and politicians that make money off of net neutrality not existing

>>133385202
Dude I lost count on how many fallacies that post has.

9,7/10.

>>133385202
They say Net Neutrality is good...but why, then, do only massive ISPs support it? Something is fishy

File: kosh vs right.jpg (2MB, 1687x3008px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1687x3008px

>>133388765
I find it amusing and a little odd that unironic Republicans have arrived at /pol/ recently, a board where every ideology, even Libertarians, hates them and considers them a laughingstock.

>>133385202
places like 4chan need to be regulated. the internet if full of creeps, terrorists, and losers. you guys do not deserve a safe haven, this place and any place like it that harbor hate, intollernce and abuse need to be shut down. since the internet is free, anyone can come on here and learn things that really shouldn't be learned. kids are impressionable so they learn wrong ideas or ideas that only hurt. women have no self control so they mindlessly send their nudes and people share them. everything about the internet is bad news and needs some form of restriction. this is a good thing, and fuck PC gamers. buy a fucking console

Why not just pass a better law that doesn't codify the Internet as a utility? Why not build in stead of tear down?

>>133389698
That's absolutely delusional.

I'm convinced anti NN posts on here are just trolling taking the piss, no one not benefiting financially from telcos could be that stupid.

>>133385202
>the Internet should not operate at speed of government
That's right, which is why we should be able to say nigger online and be against Latinos. That's exactly why net neutrality is good.
Which is faster:
a.) speed of government
b.) speed of corporations
??

>>133389058
That's going to happen regardless of whether or not Net Neutrality exists. Surveillance isn't going to stop just because companies can start charging more cash to visit your favorite sites.

>>133389412
>Big evil internet companies support it, so you should oppose it!
No shit they support it. They don't want their websites paywalled, losing them visitors, ad views, and ultimately the money lining their pockets. Obviously it's not in their best interest. In fact, I can flip your argument around and say the EXACT same thing about the anti-Net Neutrality companies. TimeWarner, Comcast, and Verizon all support abolishing it, so (in your words) I know that something is 100% bad for the people.

>>133386004
Allowing it to be more "privatized" would actually lead to better service for people who only use certain services. If I'm some rando normie that only uses a few sites regularly why wouldn't I want Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, and Netflix to have blazing fast speed? If it's not on those platforms it might as well not exist.

I'm kind of shocked net neutrality is so popular.

File: ciatrolls.jpg (298KB, 626x486px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 626x486px

fuck off CIA retard shills

>>133390536
That sounds like something a Comcast employee would say lol

>>133390536
>I'm kind of shocked net neutrality is so popular.

Because telecom gigacorporations only have so many millions to spend on Pajeets shilling social media with propaganda in favor of them and their lobbying.

>>133390194
Never, ever underestimate the power of spite, as well as partisanship among the Walmart-class
see
>>133388498

>>133385202
im an IT guy for +20years now.

besides working in it, also studied that stuff. im online 16h/day and can code, admin servers, create websites etc. - whatever related to 0/1.

i have a very deep knowledge on all of the internet, down to RFC's and the osi stack.

As a pro i can say: Net neutrality is good and should stay. its good for the people.
terminating net neutrality would piss off 99.9999% for a very small profit (gdp wise) for a group of 0.00001%

you should fight to keep it

thank you

>>133392911

This. I was shocked to hear that Trump's appointment is trying to get rid of net neutrality and that it was put into place under the Obama administration.

I am not a retard though, so that's not going to stop me from supporting net neutrality.

>>133392911
What is net neutrality? I'm so fucking lost.

File: English localization of obscure JRPGs.jpg (111KB, 1199x649px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1199x649px

>>133393294
Trump honestly might not know what it really is, or got his knowledge of it from some lobbyist creep.

If he knew that it's a populist anti-establishment idea he would support it.

>>133393508
basically everything has the same priority for transfer.

>>133392911
>as a pro I can say
>lists no actual pro, just an opinion
the pro net neutrality crowd everyone

File: 1469776822579.gif (754KB, 400x358px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 400x358px

>>133385202
Sorry Goy, you didn't signup for your alternative Media pass and will not have access to 4chan any longer.

Also, your porn pass has to be renewed by Thursday to keep viewing your 3 favorite porn spots.

>>133393294
Also people should tweet at him or his inner circle that major sites that thrash him like WaPo, NYT and CNN would get boosts and smaller sites on The Cyber like Breitbart, /pol/ and even alt-right blogs would get fucked over

>>133393870
im the pro (=professional), you fucking idiot

its fucking amazing to me that you people out of all the people on the internet would be for censorship. You should all be fighting tooth and nail for a free and neutral internet. You should all be fighting to keep the big ISPs from blocking access to websites and services that aren't theirs. The simple fact is, net neutrality was designed to keep the internet a NEUTRAL place for ALL. to NOT ALLOW ISPs to BLOCK certain WEBSITES AND SERVICES. How fucking hard is it to understand?

I mean seriously there must be so many PAID SHILLS who go against net netruality. I cant fucking believe this shit. There were also 100k+ comments all stating the same thing against net neutrality that later was found out was done by large ISPs.

BOTTOM LINE IS: If you use 4chan, netflix, reddit, google, hell ANY large website or service, you WILL be charged more OR blocked off from using those websites or services until you pay up! WAKE THE HELL UP.

You 4channers love using your popularity to make changes in the world, MAKE THIS A PRIORITY if you want to keep this place and the internet NEUTRAL AND FREE.

>>133392235
It's true though.

>>133386644
How many Muzzie languages are there?

File: DAHZcq7UMAAu1hs.jpg (184KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 900x1200px

>>133394240
>trust the government to fix a problem that isn't even happening
>leftists really care about your freedom of speech

File: 1476901883303.png (97KB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 264x264px

>>133387061

>>133394240
It's already not a neutral ground bud. A handful of websites deal with a huge portion of the traffic and most of those websites are already censoring content.

Why wouldn't I want to pay more for a better experience?

>>133385202
t. T_D redditor who supported bombing assad as well

leave cokewold

>>133390536

I have no problem doing anything on the internet ever. We are past that.

What's scary is that if net neutrality is repealed, we could go back to those days when you had to pause videos and let them buffer.

The internet is pretty fucking great right now. I don't see any reason to fuck with it, especially in terms of allowing ISPs to bottleneck data from certain sources to save money.

File: IMG_1962.jpg (45KB, 480x370px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x370px

>>133385202
Don't speak for all of us. Net neutrality is good and I supported trump. Also remember, Obozo FOUGHT it and installed Tom Wheeler (who just happened to be a former telecom lobbyist) to head the FCC. They didn't want it. LETS ALSO NOT FORGET THAT THE CURRNT CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC, a shitskin named AJIT PAI (also an Obama appointee) is the one currently trying to get rid of net neutrality. Some 4d shit here but the point is NET NEUTRALITY IS GOOD!

>>133394543
>Trust corporations any more

>>133390002
Trump ruined this place.

>>133385202
Net Neutrality FAQ:
>1. Who supports NN?
Reddit, (((4chan mod team))), Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, AirBnb, Spotify, etc. Notice how all of these groups are leftist.

>2. Will anti-NN legislation "bundle" the internet?
No, this is a commonly repeated Jewish lie like "communism works". If a company "bundles" the internet, another one will not bundle and get all the customers, just as the free market intended.

>3. Are they going to block/restrict/slow down 4chan?
No. They have the technology and legal basis to do this right now, but they aren't doing it. Anti-NN legislation won't change a thing. This is just another Jewish fiction designed to cause panic.

>4. We need to fight for NN or the internet will go into the hands of the evil corporations and Republicans! Keep the internet free and independent!
The internet is already not free. Obama already gave control of the internet to the United Nations in 2016.

>5. NN keeps us safe from evil corporations!
NN laws didn't go into effect until 2015 and things were fine before then. There were no bundles or packages, which is just a fictional threat invented by the Jews to control the panicked masses.

>6. How does NN help big companies like Netflix and Google?
The big tech companies use the most data per second, which is expensive for your ISP to transfer, compared to home users like you. Under NN, this cost is transferred to you because all data is treated equally. If NN is repealed, your ISP has leverage over Netflix to make them pay for better service. Note that your ISP is still a Jew, but it's the lesser Jew and doesn't make fag/refugee propaganda.

Stop replying to the newfag baiter
saged

File: 0.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>>IRS is a piece of shit
>>post office is a piece of shit
>>intelligence community vacuums up every shred of data on any internet/phone line
>>can't win wars vs jungle gooks and inbred sand people
>>fuck up health care while further lining the pockets of pharmaceutical cos.
>>public education is a hunk of shit
>>et al

But they'll get this internet thing right!

I don't have a particularly great understanding of net neutrality, but from what I hear, most of people's complaints about internet in the US (expense, slowness) are more directly related to the fact that there's not much competition between internet infrastructure providers. It's very difficult to compete with an established provider for a number of reasons. For one, laying this infrastructure is really expensive and has a questionable return. City laws and the existing infrastructure owners make it even more difficult for potential competitors.

Net neutrality rules are kind of unrelated, and it's not clear to me what effect different net neutrality rules would have on the average consumer in terms of what they pay for internet and quality of service.

>>133395781
The idea that the gorillians of dollars ISPs milk out of Google and Netflix would be used to upgrade infrastructure. Wouldn't be 100% for sure but they'd reinvest some of it.

>>133395319
I agree, we should get rid of nn and let the big three Jew owned ISPs rape our wallets.

>>133390308
Wow, ISP's are against Net Neutrality? Who would've guessed?

File: say no to socielest.jpg (18KB, 500x317px)

18KB, 500x317px

>>133394543
The "gubmint" is not fixing a problem, it's preventing it.

Also repealing net neutrality would probably stifle "hate speech" because all the major mainstream sites like CNN and Netflix that would benifit have no racism, and all the racialist/nationalist places are small and would be throttled

>Unironic Republisharts are supporting measures to make WaPo, CNN, NYT and BBC privileged over /pol/

>>133385202
oh man and here I was liking Ted lately

>>133395319
The commonality between those companies is they are well-known internet-based services. Without net neutrality, ISPs could potentially charge those companies more for traffic just because they can and because they know those companies' business models depend completely on internet traffic. How this would affect the average web user, I have no idea.

For what it's worth, here are some opponents of net neutrality: AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson

>>133385202
What is the argument against net neutrality

>>133397603
That for some reason they think it gives the government total control on the internet, which is wrong.

File: the rich.png (2MB, 1486x1598px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1486x1598px

>>133395319
>A neoliberal shill tries appropriating natsoc anti-semitism from us
>Ironically uses it to try to defend the American free market and megacorporations, the most Judianized entities in the western world which allowed 46% of the Amerijew upper 1% to be Jewish

Black nazis and Americann anti-semitic neoliberals, /pol/ creates some magical things

>>133397603
govt regulation stifles competition and innovation and increases user costs

>>133385202
>intellegent
American education

File: images.jpg (8KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 228x221px

>>133386004
muh loli doujins

File: 1485920319331.png (55KB, 178x152px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 178x152px

>>133385474
>>133385807
>>133385974
>>133386004

I like what you're saying. Honest. I just want a screencap. Could you wear this wig?

File: 1469565047869.gif (384KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 600x453px

>>133385202
God Bless Ted

trolls trolling trolls: the thread

Net neutrality relates to whose traffic comes first. Your computer sends packets to other computers, and your ISP has a bunch of specialized computers that transfer packets across large distances. Basically, a lack of net neutrality means that CNN and NYT packets come before 4chan packets.

This is only a problem if a ton of people want to access CNN or NYT. Many small sites might have problems receiving and sending packets, and basically a lack of net neutrality means an internet of the lowest common denominator. If a bunch of normalfags didn't go to CNN or NYT, 4chan would have a wide open pipe.

So basically;

Net neutrality = NEET
No Net neutrality = Normalfag

If you like 4chan, you like net neutrality. If you're a 13 year old girl, getting rid of Net neutrality will remove a meeting place for racists and misogynists.

>>133385202
Idek why the fuck something like net neutrality is nessecary

I mean the rest of the world manages fine with out something like it, atleast I think is there a equivalent in other places?

>>133385202
>I can't make up my own opinions so I just follow whatever republicans tell me
I rest my case.