Give me a basic gestalt on that net neutrality thing. What do

shameless selfbump

Bamp for OP

Net Neutrality is good for us all. keeps us on sites like this.

File: 1499548978224.png (269KB, 589x559px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 589x559px

>>133420292
its good

the fact that every leftist media outlet and every SJW supports it and is trying to jam it down your throat today should tell you something.

>>133420292
John Oliver is for it. That's all I need to know.

File: 1499476341360.jpg (75KB, 507x527px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 507x527px

>>133421810
A broken clock is right twice a day. Plus what is the argument against it but gay libterarian principles and core values? With Net Neutrality only the government can censor the internet, without it now you have ISP providers who can also. Unless you are super sympathetic to the 'individual rights' of ISP providers to be able to censor content if they want, something which bewilders me (why would ANYONE give a fuck except them?) you should be for net neutrality.

>>133420292
It's a short term solution to the US problem of large ISP monopolies but it's on the FCC and the long term solution of ending sad monopolies that the public's eye should be on.

File: 1459808669939.jpg (30KB, 480x356px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x356px

>>133422320

>handing over power to the government
>ever
>for any reason
>whatsoever

it's literally fixing a problem that doesn't exist

>>133422753
They ALREADY have said power, giving up on net neutrality WITH the large monopolies in place is the worst of both worlds, companies can do whatever they want BUT free market never takes place.

>>133422320
Haha yes we can surely trust the government to not sell out the American people for a quick buck to the highest bidder

Surely they have only our best interests at heart

When you give government the ability to regular internet like a utility, it will be treated like every government run utility.

See: USPS

>>133422990

only since 2015. tell me, how many times were your internet speeds throttled, or how many times were you forced to pay more to access certain parts of the web before 2015?

>>133420292
The way I see it the options are censorship powers go to private corps or the government
I don't want ANY censorship of the internet, so the lesser of two evils in this instance is giving censorship powers to the complicated bureaucracy of government in the hopes that they can't possibly keep up with the pace of the internet where as a corporation would have the autonomy to do so

>>133420292
What the fuck, lefties want to attack people for "hate speech" but then their internet privileges are in danger and all of a sudden they love free speech again?

File: 1498896477411.jpg (88KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 900x600px

>>133422753
>handing over power to the government
>ever
>for any reason
>whatsoever

Like handing it the power to protect free speech, gun rights and freedom of the press. That really ruined our freedoms relative to Europe didn't it?

Jesus wake the fuck up you moronic libertardians. Why do you faggots always pick the stupidest things to sperg out over? Defending the right of like ten corporations to censor hundreds of millions of Americans? This is like the stupidest/last thing a libertarian should fight for.

And the government STILL would have the power to censor content the only difference is that you would now ALSO hand the private sector the power to censor the internet.

So dumb.

File: netloid_hunger-games-star-jena-malone-strips-naked-for-new-x-rated-music-video-dead-rabbit-hopes.jpg (229KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1600x1200px

>>133422994
How the fuck does not having net neutrality prevent the government from censoring material on the internet?

Without net neutrality you just have TWO things to be concerned with now, the private AND the public sector can now censor the internet.

You aren't preventing the government from doing shit.

>>133420292
Net neutrality means that ISPs should enable access to all content and applications on the internet regardless of source, without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Taking away net neutrality protections, which the FCC wants to do, allows ISPs to control and fuck with your ability to use the internet. ISPs can do things like restrict what websites you can access, require you to purchase a more expensive plan to get wider internet access, sell you ads through your browser, restrict what browser and browser extensions you can use, arbitrarily throttle your connection to sites they don't want you to use. They can partner with, say, Google, and force you to use only Google applications while preventing access to similar applications from Google's competitors.

The typical argument against this is that competition in the free market will force ISPs to provide services the same as under net neutrality, but this is a flawed argument. The level of infrastructure required to become an ISP prevents competitive companies from springing up, and allows existing ISPs to hold an effective monopoly, especially with regional agreements between them. From the FCC's 2016 data, 51% of Americans have access to only one ISP. 38% of Americans have two choices. Americans pay more money for slower internet than the rest of the world. This is all primarily due to the high barrier of entry into the market that, coupled with existing massive corporations, prevents competition from forming.

>>133422753
Are you retarded? can you imagine a world where you have to pay your police subscription