NN

I was just about to make this thread. Thanks for saving me the effort.

>>133445351
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

File: il_570xN.1104295382_7hti.jpg (21KB, 570x294px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 570x294px

Bringo

>>133445351
They were against it the last time it was proposed. They're saying they are now for pr purposes but would damn well take advantage of the situation if it was abolished

Net neutrality is retarded once you actually think about it. Just one step closer to giving the internet to the government.

File: 1496083663798.jpg (102KB, 912x1491px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 912x1491px

Really makes you think

File: 5.png (15KB, 878x311px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 878x311px

>>133445351

File: 1462585302175.png (222KB, 650x408px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 650x408px

anon SOS I'm literally retarded and don't know much about this net neutrality stuff. I'm hearing stuff for and against but I have no idea who to trust, so of course I have to turn to /pol/, like always, for useful information. Can someone fill me in or tell me where to research this without having to sift through a lot of bullshit?

File: 1.png (50KB, 1880x342px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1880x342px

>>133446043
Here, I'll post a bunch of images, read through them to get a better understanding of the situation.

File: 2.png (25KB, 1878x226px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1878x226px

>>133446043
>>133446134

>>133445888
truth digits

File: 3.png (35KB, 1876x363px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1876x363px

>>133446043
>>133446134
>>133446162
And please be aware, 4chan is under a massive consensus cracking shill attack right now to try and turn as many people against net neutrality as possible.

There's basically a thread being created every couple minutes about it, always trying to tell you that net neutrality is bad.

That ALONE should be enough information to tell you what you need to know.

File: 4.png (24KB, 1881x315px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1881x315px

>>133446043
>>133446134
>>133446162
>>133446281

File: 6.png (9KB, 1677x125px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 1677x125px

>>133446043
>>133446134
>>133446162
>>133446281
>>133446309

PR

Regardless of your position on this issue, you have no excuse being this fucking stupid.

File: kiss.jpg (51KB, 980x652px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 980x652px

>>133446134
Thank you

>>133446026
god you're a fucking moron
https://mobile.twitter.com/comcast/status/885165857810386946

>>133446364
They're actually trying to put together "Net Neutrality" legislation that is actually anti-net neutrality legislation under the net neutrality name.

That's also part of the reason people are getting confused about the issue. There is a concerted effort to keep everyone in the dark about what is actually going on, and they are trying to push shit through using fraudnews and fake labels.

Does anyone here really fucking want CNN/Timewarner and Comcast/MSNBC to be deciding what websites people get to visit and how much you have to pay for individual websites?

Fuck no. And even if you think the market monopolies are an issue (and they are); repealing net neutrality legislation won't do anything to solve that. The ISP's themselves are creating these monopolies, not net neutrality. Even if you're in favor of scrapping net neutrality, you should be able to recognize that it won't actually help anyone, anywhere, unless we completely destroy the monopolies first.

The state caused the duoplolies. You know want to give them even more power. You statists would try to cure cancer with more cancer.

>>133446523
Truth hurts the liars.

Feel free to off yourself at anytime, scumbag. Anyone selling themselves like a whore to destroy the internet doesn't even deserve to be called a human being.

>>133446780
>The state caused the duoplolies. You know want to give them even more power. You statists would try to cure cancer with more cancer.


No shill, the state doesn't.
Comcast/whoever comes to a town, builds the fiber with an agreement with the state, and then includes in that agreement anti-competition clauses that prevents the state from getting service from alternatives and startups

The ISP's are CREATING the anti-competitive, free-market laws. They are not victims of it.

Begone with your fucked up lies and untruths.

>>133446783
Yeah, ok, faggot. Enjoy your govt boot. Just remember that you asked for it.
Believe it or not, your self righteous bullshit isn't right this time.

>>133446697
Ebil Corporation bogeymen.
Fake crisis.
Speculative fiction.
More government.
Every time.

>>133445351
>Siding with ISPs
You people fucking disgust me

You ever think ISPs realize they're one of the most reviled industries?

File: 1499851594822.jpg (25KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x375px

>>133446892
> with an agreement with the state, and then includes in that agreement anti-competition clauses
> the state doesn't cause monopolies
are you this fucking retar--- of course you are.

>>133447051
you're the one siding with them if you support NN, moron

see >>133446523

>>133447190
>A twitter post
I sure am convinced anon

Again, you don't think they realize whatever side they "take" won't be popular? You're getting played like a damn fiddle.

>>133447039
at this point i'm almost resigned
people are so fucking retarded
we can't handle liberty
I think it's meant for a higher IQ species

>>133447051
They're shills bud.

More information on how net neutrality ACTUALLY works:
>>133446026
>>133446134
>>133446162
>>133446281
>>133446309
>>133446345

and pass the info along to other anons if you can when you see more of these threads popping up. The shills are spamming the board right now, so it shouldn't be hard to find more.

File: FB_IMG_1499867127982.jpg (17KB, 541x540px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 541x540px

>>133446010
>really makes you think.

>>133445351
Daily reminder that the FTC has BTFO of every company in favor of NN

>>133447464
not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. I know it makes your mundane life feel significant to think you're waging meme war with corporate stooges, but some of us actually understand what govt control over the market entails and oppose it on principled grounds.

>>133445351
stupid picture, OP.

>>133445888
>giving the internet to the government

The government created the internet, retard. Also, Obama gave control over the internet to foreigners. Isn’t that nice of him? We create the internet and we give the keys to someone else.

File: 1499732003618.png (125KB, 392x215px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 392x215px

>>133447759
fuck off it's all i had on this PHONE!!!!! >:O

>>133445615
SPBP

>>133447190
You can't be serious right? A fucking twitter post?

Its called PR, nobody will come out and publicly state that they want to facefuck you, they make you lower your guard first.

Fuck off shill.

File: bernie-sanders.jpg (243KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1280x720px

>>133447415
>me when hilldog stuffed bernie
ofc then he immediately dropped to his knees for DNC bukkake which just amplified my resignation

Now I /pol/ full-tilt for acceleration and a few lulz.

>>133447464
Can't speak for other anons, but I'm not a shill, I just believe in the free market and don't cherry pick my beliefs because it suits me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28&feature=youtu.be

Here

>>133448176
>he immediately dropped to his knees
Not this meme again. He agreed with Hillary more than he agreed with Trump. Of course he didn't want to do something that would jeopardize her chances too much, like continuing to oppose her would have.

>>133445351
Net neutrality is just another attack on private property. A really well dressed up and disguised one but just more of the same. I thought this board would be the one place where people would understand it.

As it stands, net neutrality protects your identity at the cost of being competitively neutralized.

You build an epic private service with chump change and you can expect to be cannibalized.

It's cool seeing it come to life, unfortunately at the cost of remaining anonymous.

Really makes me hate people though.

I can sense their entitlement to my anonymity as if I'd be punished for being the dude who refused to eat shit.

>>133448176
wait, are you seriously equating Bernie with liberty? You're not equating a socialist with liberty... you can't possibly be doing that.

>>133448094
>MUH SHILL
you're as bad as the faggots who cry racist when they can't comprehend someone disagreeing with them

>>133448439

Does this Pajeet even know how badly he's fucking up right now?
This dumbass is sitting there with his shit eating grin trying to pass this shit, but I don't think he understands just how many unhinged NEETs, degenerates, no-life gamers, and complete loners out there spend most of their time on the internet.

There are bound to be at least a few dozen of them insane enough to gun for the man that ruined their last and only escape from an otherwise meaningless existence.

>>133445351
>why are they all in favor of it?
They aren't. The biggest ISPs are against it.

>>133446043
The best thing you can do is not go to pol about it. Everyone here is clearly ass backwards.

File: 543.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>i've figured out the best form of govt because 20 gorillion adidasfags starved or some shit
bernie was legit.

you trump shills are either accelerating with me, or you were stupid enough to fall for a corrupt sleazy businessman's astroturfers.

HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU

>>133449089
At least he isn't citing twitter posts as evidence.
You didn't even mention the core of his argument btw, so ya, you're either a shill or just mentally retarded.

>>133448546
*Opposition of net neutrality is just another

fixed that

>>133445351
They're not you retarded burger. Verizon, AT&T and others all want to change the current net neutrality rules. The reason Google is in favor of it is because search engines would be useless on a censored internet. All of these companies care about profits over regular people, however, Google happens to be on the right side on this issue mainly because the populist position would hurt their bank account the least. Whereas the ISP's are against NN because the populist position could potentially impede their ability to screw over consumers.

I just can't wait for the day I see a campaign where some corporation going on the record to say it is assimilating efforts to make the internet....

... and I'll stop right there because they're already thinking about it.

I guess the question is:
> Do you feel lucky? Well... Do ya? Punk?

Try me.

File: 12379395.jpg (85KB, 625x562px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 625x562px

>>133445351
They're not. Look at who's against it. Comcast, Time-Warner, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

File: summerfags everywhere.png (85KB, 234x250px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 234x250px

>>133446043
>>133446134
>>133446162
>>133446281
>>133446345

this is setup and alley oop is so fucking transparent i cant believe summer fags are falling for it

>>133445351

except they aren't in favor of it

>>133447464
>net neutrality ACTUALLY works:

There's more to Title II than just this. It's not neutrality, it's literally a huge government takeover.

It's just going back to the rules that were set up under the Clinton Administration.

Anyone who thinks net neutrality helps can look at T-Mobile. They have been taking out the big dogs of AT&T and Verizon by flaunting net neutrality "ideals".

I don't care about the opinion of a Canadian anyways, I'm just posting this to hope that anyone who would be the type to believe screenshots of random posts to instead research on the subject themselves.

File: ancap ball irl.jpg (100KB, 740x746px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 740x746px

>>133448336
>muh free market

ISPs aren't a free market, retard. And holding autstically to an arbitrary axiom like "must always side with free markets and less government no matter what" is just fucking dumb. Getting rid of border enforcement and ICE would also be "deregulation". I guess that's a good thing too, right faggot?

>>133450085
yes he is retarded. Most of these people have never heard of net neutrality, and seem to believe the bill being proposed *is* net neutrality and as such we must oppose net neutrality.

They literally have it backwards and can't see it. Either that or they're really effective trolls.

>>133447927
>we create the internet
>we
>thinking the government gives a shit about its people

>>133450554
It's a mix of shills, trolls and retards famalam. Mostly retards with some legitimately paid shills and a few trolls.

>>133445351
hmmm good point
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices?category=open-internet

http://newsroom.cox.com/news-releases?item=122500

http://news.centurylink.com/blogs/policy/keep-the-internet-open-and-freewithout-regulation

>>133445888
truth

>>133450554
It's like they don't remember the first this shit popped up. Probably because they were literal children then.

File: 1491909181127.png (101KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x640px

why should govt. have any control over the internet in the first place?

>>133450734
don't bother
they'll just handwave it by calling it PR

>>133450839
Because the invented it and registered it as a public service.

Net neutrality is Big Government and (((Big Business))) getting together to pass laws for "your own good".

I know this is a stretch but can you remember back two whole years to mid 2015 when there was no net neutrality? Can you recall the massive problems you had using the internet or getting on 4chan back then? Me neither.

>>133445888
THE GOVERNMENT IS REGULATING THE INTERNET TOO MUCH...
...by having laws that prevent internet providers from selectively picking/choosing what sites/traffic its users are allowed to go to.

>>133449538

bernie was a faggot jew

>>133445351
Quite frankly, net neutrality and the internet in general has been the best thing for the arts and sciences since the printing press.

>>133451164
This is a fucking fallacy. That's not how laws work. There were no NN laws before 2015 because it was only in 2015 that ISPs started realizing they could limit certain traffic to their benefit. That's how laws work. They're typically reactive to when someone does something that's technically legal but wasn't accounted for until that point.

>>133451168

1. This is not a law. This never went through Congress.
2. This was way more than doing "prevent internet providers from selectively picking/choosing what sites/traffic its users are allowed to go to".

In the fight against companies that bundle services, the FCC bundled a shit load of rules under this umbrella called "net neutrality". Is that called irony or something else?

>>133445351
isp's are all against it. but thanks for the bizzaro bullshit shill thread. theres 5 more on the catalog. Gookmoots takin those bribes.

File: thcc.png (283KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 853x480px

>>133446010

>>133449779
No. Opposition to net neutrality reduces the government's size. Reducing the government increases private property. The half-assertion you sort of tried to make here is provably false.

>>133445351
It's called "Advertising." Do you really think they're going to say "We're going to screw you?"

>>133451164
Actually the internet in the USA has been a screw up since AOL merged with time Warner as the FCC set the groundwork for that in 96 and then further took out competition in 2010 and then in 2015 and now in 2017 they are trying to do it again. NN is bad but monopolies are worse. I kinda want NN to fail though so we can crash these corporations and build a anew, like really.

>>133451316
ISPs have been limiting P2P traffic for well over 10 years. This is not something that just cropped up around 2015.

Also there are many countries (including NZ) where there are no net neutrality laws. Amazingly none of the nightmare scenarios dreamed up by the net neutrality crowd occur here. Just like they didn't occur pre-2015 in the USA.

Could it be that consumers won't purchase a defective product? That's how markets work...

But hey Obama, (((Jewgle))), and Micro$oft are all for net neutrality so it must be good. Right goy?

All the shit deals like data caps and slow speeds ISPs are offering are due to NN.

>>133452827
>Could it be that consumers won't purchase a defective product? That's how markets work...
Good luck with that when there's only one product in the whole town to buy.

>>133447051
ISPs provide me my internet. I love them :3

>>133453063
Big corps love regulation like this precisely because it is harder for small / new entities to comply with the rules they helped to write.
One of the reasons there are tons of ISPs is because of the lack of regulation.

>>133445351
loololw how does this affects us, the european masterrace?

Irrelevant. Sad!

>>133452845
No its due to their monopoly. NN is just a bandaid to a bigger problem. Thats all Obama ever did was offer bandaid solutions and play golf dont you get it yet?

>>133445351

PR.

>>133453469
Please explain to me how laws designed to help protect the consumer are going to make it worse for the consumer.

>>133453469

>One of the reasons there are tons of ISPs is because of the lack of regulation.

Yes, but the infrastructure regulations have absolutely nothing to do with NN.

>>133453733
Because intentions does not equate to outcome when it comes to government.
See: welfare, pensions, the DMV...
When the average age of a US Senator is 63 years do you trust them to accurately predict what is "best" in a quickly evolving and highly competitive market?

>>133454121
Thanks for avoiding the question, I guess. Now at least I can leave the thread knowing that you're retarded.

>>133446134
>Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015
>It didn't exist because it didn't need to exist
Is this what the Web 2.0 generation actually believes?
Have we really done so poorly in teaching the history of the internet?

>>133454180
You asked a shit question that doesn't deserve respect. (((Net neutrality))) is not meant to protect consumers. It's meant to assure that consumers pay the price for banwidth and infrastructure upgrades instead of companies uploading content that hogs space.

>>133445351
>What is PR; the post

>>133454566
false butt pirate.

>>133454180
Don't let the door hit your burger ass on the way out faggot :)

Or *hardmode* you could explain how "laws designed to help protect the consumer" (debatable) actually help the consumer (the real point) with something other than a tautology.

>>133454566
It's meant to protect both the consumer and the content producers. You may not like Youtube because it is part of a big evil corporation, but unless we protect their rights we can't protect our own. You cant just write in a "well I don't like Youtube so fuck them" exception to your rights, it doesn't work like that.

>>133454724
Nigger, you're the one who made the original claim, I was just responding to you. Explain how this will in any way negatively impact the consumer.

>>133452827
I hate NZ Internet laws
You can legally request the internet history of other people using your Internet from your isp, which means in NZ partners check up on each others Internet
This is illegal in USA

File: Net Neutrality.png (166KB, 1863x950px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1863x950px

>>133446134
nice collection

>>133453779
>Be 100 billion dollar ISP
>Laugh at economic regulation
>Making money anyway but want more for shareholders
>Co-opt few ISPs who cant handle said regulation
>Not enough!
>Trump elected
>Time to consolidate this bitch
>Turn off regulation
>Expand
>Reaganomics$$$$$ AYYYYYYY LMAOOOOOOOO
>Screw your customers
>New (((President))) is elected
>We need net neutrality!
>Small ISPs who latched onto the boom are now co-opted

We need to break up monopolies. Fuck Net neutrality, fuck trumps Reaganomics.

>>133452845
No, it's due to the fact that ISP companies have carved out areas with zero competition. Something like 85% of Americans live in an area with access to 1 or 2 ISPs. The ISPs have given themselves regional monopolies over internet service, so they can charge you out the ass for shit service. The problem isn't NN, it's the lack of ISP competition.

The lack of competition comes from a massive barrier to entry and red tape put up by existing ISPs. To be a competitive ISP, you need your own physical infrastructure for delivering internet over the country. This costs millions of dollars and takes years to build. ISPs have also made deals with municipalities to prevent new companies from laying cable, so even if you come in with a bag of cash ready to build new internet infrastructure, you're blocked. So long as ISP companies enjoy a virtual monopoly, NN is necessary to keep them from fucking over customers more than they already are.

>>133455123
>It'll protect the consumer because based Ribbit and John Oliver told me so.
>Jewtube and Jewgle are the good kikes. Le Comcast and Time Warner are the bad kikes.
>Netflix isn't a degenerate anti-white company and deserves equal sympathy because muh rights

Here's your redpill on Millenial pablum like (((net neutrality))):

Once upon a time, only spergs used a great deal of bandwith. Now every Chad, Stacy, and Jamal is watching Game of Thrones on Netflix streaming HD video at the same time. ISP's gotta upgrade their shit, so who pays?

>(((net neutrality)))

The costs are shared while the profits are centralized because le internet is like le water and if you use more there's less for everyone else so obviously heavy users should foot the bill!

>(((net neutrality))) fails

Netflix, YouTube, Google, Amazon, etc. pay some of the costs for the stress they encourage instead of passing off the fee onto consumers.

If you own a Korean cave painting site, then webpages will still load fine on the "slow" lane as compared to the massive pipes Netflix needs. Big streaming companies are pretending to fight on your behalf because they want to be the ones writing and influencing the legislation under which so-called net neutrality operates. AT&T and friends will make sure bills are passed that benefit them. Who do you think controlled the FCC in the early days of the telephone, who wrote the legislation to enable the AT&T monopoly in the first place?

>Net Neutrality will treat ISP's like common carriers just like the mail service.

"See guys, there's this problem. Y'know how we can't hold package services accountable for bombs but we damn sure require they put checks in place to make sure bombs aren't sneaked through? Well, there are certain websites promoting racial hatred, sedition, Islamophobia, sexism, and ideas that become violence under the guise of free speech. It's your obligation as a public utility to do your part to keep that from happening".

>>133446783
he just proved your faggot post wrong. Comcast, ATT, etc. all support NN.

Fucking canacuck nigger

>>133456208
Holy christ, can you please stop being such a faggot? What sort of mentally deficient human being actually sits and types up something this retarded, this full of memes and shitposting and expects another person to actually take them seriously?

Please rephrase your post in a way that doesn't inflict brain cancer.

>>133445351
>If Net Neutrality is all about keeping the greedy ISPs from gouging customers... why are they all in favor of it?
is that why comcast suing the government to change net neutrality rules literally kicked off all this shit years ago?
fucking moron

>>133456601
So do you get paid by the post or by the word?

>Google, YouTube, etc. just happen to merrily share a common interest with free speech activists.

>No, never mind that these companies self-censor shit for overtly political reasons all of the time. This time they actually care about their bottom line more than their agenda.

>This is benign government legislation to help we, the people. Much like TPP and SOPA were about protecting trade from unfair barriers and defending intellectual property rights and didn't contain surreptitious, usurping bullshit to enrich lobbyists and expand bureaucratic oversight.

>The government wants to use NN to pass laws to keep flow of information fair and free and totally won't abuse the authority it gives itself to insure that in order to demand ISPs throttle or censor "dangerous sites."

Stay mad, and post more bullshit about NN not being a debunked meme well before 2015 as if it makes you look less new.

>>133457158
I asked you to rephrase your post in a way that is readable, but instead you post an equally unreadable mess of unfiltered bullshit. Is it really so hard for you to clearly and concisely state your points? I'm genuinely trying to understand why some people are opposed to NN and there aren't all that many here which is why I am trying to get you to tell me your thoughts, but you don't seem to be able to type out a coherent sentence. If you are representative of the type of people opposed to NN then it is quickly becoming apparent to me that NN is the way to go.

>>133445351
>10$ m dollars spent on shilling
rly bogs the nog

Don't YouTube and google both fall under Alphabet Inc. so it would make sense they have the same stance.
Is anybody really saying NN is bad? Isn't the issue the telecommunications act of 2015....

>>133457811
>It doesn't validate and regurgitate my objectively incorrect argument

>Unreadable!

Well sorry, nigger, but I can't possibly dumb down simple concepts anymore. Time for you to step up and get good.

>>133457811
Most of the internet that isn't controlled by members of the Globalist clique is fundamentally built on what Net Neutrality outlaws. Please read and look at how they completely outlaw trolling, memes, hell even trash talking on the internet or any form of communication over a telecommunication device. Something that never gets talked about in these Net Neutrality astroturf threads is that Title II Net Neutrality applies censorship laws to the internet. Notice how the pro-Net Neutrality posters always talk about the possibility that Comcast or Verizon will "censor" certain content. What they fail to mention is that the Law that the FCC reinterpreted and applied to ISPs in 2015 and called "Net Neutrality" actually contains obscenity laws and speech codes that explicitly censor "obscene" or "annoying" content. What the FCC is calling "Net Neutrality" is actually just a massive regulatory move that will give the FCC extremely high control and authority over what kinds of communication are allowed and disallowed on the (until now) open internet. Let's not forget the FCC's horrible track record on our First Amendment rights.

The censorship portion of the Law is under Section 223. But don't take my word on it, read the Law itself.

>(a) Whoever– (1) in interstate or foreign communications– (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly– (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

>(C) :::makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass::: any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

>>133459690

>(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.:::

Let's get something else straight: It's not just ISPs that have a dog in this fight. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Conde Nast, all of whom censor content, are pro-Net Neutrality. The idea that Title II will somehow prevent censorship is insane - we already have censorship on the internet and Title II will do absolutely nothing to stop Google/Facebook/Twitter/Conde Nast from censoring whatever they feel like censoring. In fact, the "Net Neutrality" passed down by the FCC does exactly what people say it's supposed to prevent - censorship - and it's important to cut through the bullshit and expose what's really going on here, which is one corporate lobby (websites) astroturfing public opinion to get a different corporate lobby (ISPs) to do them a favor by not throttling their traffic.

This is bait and switch - get a censorship Law applied to the internet and call it "Net Neutrality," fearmonger/astroturf until the public willingly accepts it. "OH NO! COMCAST IS COMING FOR MY NETFLIX!!!"

They could pass literally anything and call it "Net Neutrality" and reddit would eat it up like the idiots they are.

>>133446523

See: >>133445815

Companies dont have your best interests in mind, companies would support the nazis if they thought it would make them the most money.

You are a child.

File: 1499928005683.jpg (98KB, 656x1024px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 656x1024px

They publicly say they are in favor of it because of PR

Pic related tells the real story