REDPILLS ON NET NEUTRALITY

the free market is democratic in that it makes YOU, the CONSUMER, the only one who really has a vote in whether or not information is censored!

NET NEUTRALITY will change ALL of this! it will take the power from YOU the people, an the sniveling liars will do it all in the name of GIVING power to you, the people, under the presumption that you're too STUPID to call them on their BS

the internet and the free flow of information on it IS what allowed Trump to get elected in the face of a coordinated MSM attack against him. THIS WAS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THEM. ONE THEY MUST STEM UNDER THE BANNER OF "NATIONAL SECURITY" AND "FAKE NEWS"! trust them when they say they're doing it all for you guys! it's all for you! they just want to censor those "bad" opinions because they're not true and they will hurt you! it's not because the truth would uncover their corruption and unseat them from their thrones of power! no way! it's not like every regime in history has seeked to control the flow of information and what the people believe through propaganda, censorship and other dishonest tactics!

>>133504111
>and if this policy becomes law
It is law, though.

>>133504111
you are wrong as fuck you fucking retard!

net neutrality has been in effect since 1995.
without it you will be paying "dial-up by-the-hour" fees again.

that is all it would ever amount to.

>>133504412
>>133504438
no

>>133504789
but yes.

net neutrality has been in effect since 1995.
that is a hard fact.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-13-12-56-21.jpg (582KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1080x1920px

The only way abolishing net neutrality would work in the States if there was another option for an ISP if one of them throttles. However, because of your countries retarded laws it's impossible to allow new ISPs to come up. Thereby, most areas have a monopoly and no other options have only one option.

And whenever a company comes along that tries to establish another option it is me with REEEEEs and screeching from established ISPs. Just look at how much opposition was thrown at Google for trying to improve internet speeds with fiber.

Pic related is what should be happening in the states with competition between the ISPs and market choice. That isn't the case.

even here nobody sees the big picture with this thing :(

>>133504111
scientist without PHD this fucking nigger.

>>133504111
How do we track down these shills and kill them? Anyone got any ideas?

>>133506255
if it has been in effect since 1995 as earlier anon states, why have we not seen the government censoring as you say?

>>133504111
The government already can and does censor the internet, and it still would be able to with or with net neutrality. WTF are you libertardians talking about?

the US election started heavy libtard censoring once yasss started losing.

>>133506500
Killing one won't solve anything, some other fuckin Shitheel will rise to power instead

>>133506570
its been in effect in part since 1995 but there's more than just one law, and what they want to do in principle will allow government to ultimately control everything you see. that's why they're all supporting this so vehemently. you think they really want to protect you? you know they don't, you just saw obama TELL you he wants to censor you.

as of right now there's public outcry everywhere over censorship. on a smaller scale, it works on platforms like twitter and facebook, because those platforms have a specific demographic as their main market. but if the government has its way it will continue to move the power its way and it will basically stop allowing you to come to websites like this (seriously, this isn't a god damn conspiracy, you just heard the former president of the US say it to the UN, while he was still in power).

net neutrality is ESSENTIAL to this plan because it puts the governments foot in the door. if there's no net neutrality, there's no future for their plan to censor the internet.

everyone can call me a moron, that's fine, and maybe i spoke a bit out of turn and carelessly when i said "if this principle becomes law" or whatever, i guess you could interpret that as something different than it meant if you wanted to.

nobody seems to understand the play on this one.

>>133506616
The internet being title II gives far more power than you realize and is a bad move in response to regional monopolies.

>>133505189
Sauce

>>133505189
Source? As far as I know, CompuServe hourly rates were stamped out by AOL introducing monthly rates which became the go-to model of all dial-up ISPs.

>>133506255
You're the one incable of seeing the big picture.
Why the hell would /pol/ or any reasonable individual be against net neutrality? The fact remains that most people in the US only have one, maybe two choices in ISPs. You can't just go to a new one. In principle what you're saying is solid, but it's no reality.
The ISPs are in agreement to keep competition to a minimum.
Net neutrality is the only way smaller new businesses can thrive.

If you can't understand this fact you may be retarded.

>>133507353
net neutrality is a principle. he's talking about a law. i guess some of the libtards and morons caught me on a technicality here because of one of the statements i made. there are laws that have been in effect regarding this whole thing for a long time, but it's not the full embodiment of the principle that people like /u/spez on plebbit and the rest of the demoncrats and morons are pushing for here.

where are these leftists who are pro net neutrality?

>>133504438
Look at this shill, LOOK AT HIM!

>>133507520
if you can't understand that despite all of the problems the free market has, putting power over people and information in the hands of the GOVERNMENT is even worse, then you may be retarded

>>133507134
I think this is the real issue. The internet becoming title II allows the FCC to regulate it. That's the key issue here. NN is just Jewish obfuscation.

The internet is not a fucking public utility like power and water. It is not needed to live.

>>133508114
fucking bingo dude

>>133507669
they are right behind you

>>133504111

Net neutrality has been the fucking default position since the 90s you retard. The telecom companies want to take it away, not put it into effect.

White Supremecists flags are always dumb as fuck.

>>133508365
not really, net neutrality is a principle and the law is always evolving and moving toward the side of placing the internet under government jurisdiction. like the above user mentioned, title 2 and all of the bullshit you've been hearing about it for the last few years

>>133507679
Yeah because you're totally not some comcast shill right?

>>133508114
Why shouldn't the Internet be a public utility exactly? We've become too dependant on it not to.

>>133508552
Because it's not a public utility. It's a convenience. It's like saying a personal automobile is now a public utility.

>>133508552
Idk why shouldnt food, healthcare, college, furniture, trips to cabo, cocaine, subscriptions to pornhub be public utility you retarded commie fuck?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!

>>133508547

How the fuck is net neutrality a ploy to get the government to regulate the internet? Do you even know what net neutrality is as a principle? It's that bandwidth is bandwidth, regardless of the site it comes from, and thus telecom companies can't throttle connections to double dip into the consumers/companies pockets.

There's literally no point in arguing with you, you're clearly so wrapped up in "da joos" that you reality has a filter on it for you at this point.

>>133507768
>Man I sure do love getting fucked over by companies instead of letting the government do what I elected them to do

>>133508552
>Why shouldn't the Internet be a public utility exactly? We've become too dependant on it not to.
good god, this is the type of stupid mentality they rely upon. once it's a public utility, which is what i'm talking about here even though some shills have tried to pull some "gotcha" shit with a technicality in the OP, they can REGULATE IT and they can CONTROL IT. now you JUST HEARD the president of the UNITED STATES standing before the UNITED NATIONS and telling you that he intends to censor the information out there. he wants to stop the climate change debate, for example, via a "truthiness test" AKA literal ORWELLIAN MINISTRY OF INFORMATION so it's not a FUCKING CONSPIRACY THEORY it's the FUCKING FACT that that's what's going to happen once government gets its grubby paws on the internet

GOOD BYE 4CHAN, GOOD BYE WIKILEAKS, GOOD BYE INFOWARS, GOOD BYE BREITBART, EVENTUALLY GOOD BYE FOX NEWS!

>>133508924
>Do you even know what net neutrality is as a principle? It's that bandwidth is bandwidth, regardless of the site it comes from, and thus telecom companies can't throttle connections to double dip into the consumers/companies pockets.
THIS IS WHAT IT IS IN PRINCIPLE TO YOU. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT? AN EXCUSE FOR THEM TO PRESUME CONTROL OVER THIS VALUABLE INFORMATIONAL RESOURCE AND PLAY UPON YOUR STUPID LIBERAL, TRUSTING MENTALITY TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION THE WAY THEY ALWAYS DO

WTF dudes, I know most of you support Trump (and I used to do it too) but don't be retarded! Thanks to net-neutrality we've got 4Chan, Can you Imagine what would have happened to this website without net-neutrality if Clinton would win the elections instead? we'd be rather fucked.
Internet must stay free from companies (in terms of domination of contents)

>>133509227
>Internet must stay free from companies (in terms of domination of contents)
and you're saying it needs to be put in the hands of the government to protect us from companies! hahahahhahahaha it's one or the other. take your pick. its the government or the companies. the only difference is that one is governed and kept in line by the FREE MARKET. GOVERNMENT can do whatever the fuck they want to do and once they get control over the internet they don't have to worry about elections anymore since they control all of the info. just like in the 90s and before, the people who won were the people the media TOLD you to vote for

>>133505888
>/pol/ gives argument based on 'muh free market'
>Reasonable response points out that there is on competition for ISPs in the USA and ISPs regularly get anti-competitive laws put in place
>/pol/ contrarians btfo yet again
Guaranteed zero responses besides me

File: 1499649940464.jpg (30KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x480px

>>133509147

>something means x
>but in reality it means the opposite because im retarded and see ghosts even when there are none.

This is why race realism is treated as a joke. Retarded fucking skinheads like you walk around with your arm outstretched spouting off the most asinine bullshit and generally making yourself look stupid. When in reality you are the very untermensche hitler would've gassed. At least keep your mouth quiet so that you can be a good useful idiot when you further our plans.

>>133505888
>>133509561
And your solution to this is to give the government complete control of the internet?

Jesus Christ it's true commies really aren't human

>>133509439
And yet nobody has explained how this law allows the government to censor the internet except for
>muh slippery slope

>>133509737
>>something means x
>>but in reality it means the opposite because im retarded and see ghosts even when there are none.
>This is why race realism is treated as a joke. Retarded fucking skinheads like you walk around with your arm outstretched spouting off the most asinine bullshit and generally making yourself look stupid. When in reality you are the very untermensche hitler would've gassed. At least keep your mouth quiet so that you can be a good useful idiot when you further our plans.

this comment is a joke. you're calling it a"ghost" i provided the video of obama standing before the fucking united nations and declaring it as his intention to censor the internet. what fucking "ghost" is that, you moron?

>>133509439
Dude, I didn't say internet had to be controlled by governments neither..
With Democrats in the power and without net-neutrality, do you think 4chan could stay alive?

>>133509940
NN doesn't give the government complete control of the internet.

>>133510001
yeah it is "muh slippery slope", that's right. it's a foot in the door for them. of something is done about this law, they know they will NEVER be able to censor the internet. despite all of the problems that exist with telecom companies, the only real hope for a free and open internet in the future is the free market the people holding providers accountable. that in itself is a pretty difficult task that the population might not (probably won't) be up to, but it's the only hope long term for preserving something that i think has become vital to our democracy and our rights / ability to govern ourselves

>>133510044
but that's the thing, when you talk about net neutrality it's inherently government control over the internet. the rest is just a matter of degrees. you've already let government stick its head in where it doesnt belong. now it's just a short skip and a jump to where they want to be. considering they are blatantly and openly lobbying for such actions in front of television cameras and the "UN", this shouldn't be written off as "muh slippery slope argument". it's here. it's now. this is what the whole "fake news" thing that came about was about and all of the attempted censorship of sites like infowars, even by companies like facebook, that stemmed from all that. government knows once these laws are repealed they will NEVER be able to touch the internet. EVER. THATS why you see all of these powerful people pretending to lobby for your interests on this issue, when on every other issue they're straight up globalist ideologues. it's no fucking different, it's just that this chess move is a little farther out than the average pleb, or even the above average pleb you would find here on pol, is capable of comprehending or predicting

>>133510267
So I'm seeing a trend with republican lawmaking. The idea is
>"this law isn't perfect, it solves one problem but creates another"
>"lets get rid of this law, and at the same time not fix the original problem"
Is that the idea here? Why don't the republicans in congress want to fix the issue of ISP regional monopolies? Have they shown that they care about the issue at all?

>>133504111
>since the internets inception and its proliferation to the masses, IT HAS NOT BEEN CENSORED because big communications companies HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE FREE MARKET!

That's a lie though, Mr. Shill

The internet hasn't been censored because they didn't think to censor it, while running around creating market monopolies everywhere they could.

Then around 2010 onwards to 2014 they DID start to censor and control what you could see online, and people collectively voted in favor of net neutrality laws to put an end to it. In 2015 the US got net neutrality legislation.

And the internet's been how it was in the beginning since then. You can still visit any website, and the providers can't censor content or deny access.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with a free market. It doesn't create the market monopolies we see today, and it doesn't influence how they're created either. What Net Neutrality actually does is prevent ISP's from censoring content. And I need to remind people - the ISP's are companies like Time Warner (CNN), and Comcast (MSNBC). Do you really want these people controlling what websites you can and cannot visit?

The market monopoly situation is one which is entirely outside the scope of net neutrality. So if you want to fix the monopolies, repealing net neutrality laws that are currently in place will do NOTHING.

But the liars, like the OP, have a lot to gain by net neutrality being repealed. They're LYING to you about what net neutrality actually does. They're LYING to you about how these market monopolies actually form. The same old tactics by the same old media. Don't let them trick you again.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-13-13-43-34.jpg (392KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1080x1920px

>>133508827
Food should be a public utitlity dumbfuck. If it weren't we'd be stuck with your cheap unregulated shitty milk.

>>133509940
Wow. You're even more retarded than the guy above. We have net neutrality (which doesn't mean the government controls every aspect you fucking shill) and we have price wars between ISPs for who can be the best. How about breaking the monopolies to allow competition?

Oh, but you have absolutely no response to that do you? Is swear verizon and comcast and these bumblefucks have to be shilling here.

DO YOU SEE THIS PICTURE? THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN THE STATES BECAUSE OF YOUR MONOPOLIES.

>>133510721
no this is more aptly flipped back around towards democrats who see a problem and then think "letting the government handle it" is the best answer when government is responsible for more mass murder in history by far than any other entity.

>>133510040

In that video he was talking about handing over control to ICANN, literally has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

I know you're slow and all but jesus christ at least try to use your brain.

>>133510147
>>133510801
I'm talking about the Internet becoming title II you stupid fucks. Read the thread and then post you Reddit newfag faggots. Kill yourselves.

>>133510801
And let me state this again, you stupid fuck.

Your solution to GOVERNMENT CREATED monopolies is to GIVE TOTAL CONTROL TO THE GOVERNMENT.

GREAT LOGIC THERE YOU MOTHER LESS CUNT

PURGE THE COMMIE SCUM

File: devil.jpg (11KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 284x177px

>>133504111
>the GOVERNMENT does not have to answer to any such market. big brother can do whatever they want and if this policy becomes law then it might not happen today, or tomorrow, but eventually all of the "redpill" websites like this one and ESPECIALLY people publishing content like wikileaks will be GONE! they will be deemed "treasonous", or "an attack on US sovereignty" and the government will censor them.
>just believe them! just believe the government!
Ah gotcha! So there really is a need for an "Open Society". Perhaps George Soros isn't that evil after all.

File: vyb0eS7.jpg (548KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1632x1224px

>>133507353
>>133507451
Net Neutrality (e.g. common carrier status) wasn't enforced before 2015, but the ISP's acted as common carriers for beneficial legal reasons (e.g. they are not responsible for the content of the websites they provide access to)

However, that started to change as the ISP's decided they wanted to police and enforce their own idea of what the internet should look like (cable television) and then in 2015 an actual Net Neutrality law was put into place.

So we've been living under Net Neutrality legislation for about two years now, and "effective" Net Neutrality legislation for over a decade. Has the entire internet collapsed during this time? No! It's what makes the internet what it is today.

But CNN (ISP - Time Warner) doesn't like that. CNN doesn't want people accessing 4chan. CNN doesn't want people accessing alternative news. Broadcasters don't want people watching Netflix and Youtube instead of Cable Television. They want to repeal Net Neutrality laws so they can start breaking down the internet and controlling what you can and cannot see - just like they already do with cable.

If you really have a bone to pick with market monopolies, net neutrality has NOTHING to do with that.

The Market Monopolies are bought and paid for by the very ISP's trying to convince you it's a problem with Net Neutrality. It isn't! These ISP's come into towns, cities, and states, bribe representatives and get deals that lock out any competition in their market. That's not a net neutrality problem, it's a too-big-to-fail and corruption problem. We need to break up the monopolies, not let them lie to us about how net neutrality works so they can fuck us over even more.

>>133510774
the problem with what your saying is that peoples ANSWER to censorship isn't the right answer. you're taking the CENSORSHIP power out of the hands of one group that is ultimately accountable to you and putting it in the hands of another that you KNOW want to censor you and has even LESS accountability.

you're making the problem WORSE and then saying "well but look, there is a problem now so we have to do something about it". well sure, you have to do something about it, but you're doing something that just makes it WORSE.

the answer is not to entrust government with the power to control the internet, the answer is to take away government regulations that prevent new businesses and competition from starting up.

then when private entities stop regulating, guess what? the people have another choice and they take their business elsewhere.

considering that your heads of state have already officially stated their intention to censor the internet (one example linked to in OP, obama at UN) this is the ONLY way and the ONLY answer.

LESS GOVERNMENT LESS GOVERNMENT LESS GOVERNMENT, that's always the answer

>>133511511
you piece of shit you communists literally claim "we're going to create a free and open society through massive government regulation which is eventually going to lead to no government" and the irony and stupidity is genuinely fucking lost upon your sad and sorry moronic souls

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

25KB, 1878x226px

>>133511511
The United States has the US Constitution in which the right to free speech is very clearly enumerated.

The US Government and the FCC cannot start censoring these websites without violating the first amendment of the US Constitution. If they try to do it, every citizen affected has legal grounds to sue the government and take the case all the way to the supreme court. A recourse that they don't have if the censorship is instead enacted by private corporations colluding together. (e.g. exactly like what we see right now today with the fraud news networks - who again I have to add here, are the same people who own most of the ISP's in the US)

CNN = Time Warner
MSNBC = Comcast

These are the people you're willing to let control the internet? You really think they have YOUR interests in mind? Fuck no they don't.

>>133511776
Not an argument.
>and the irony and stupidity is genuinely fucking lost upon your sad and sorry moronic souls

Humor me.

>>133511031
>In that video he was talking about handing over control to ICANN, literally has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
no you dumbass, it has literally everything to do with it, that was the president of the united states, speaking before the united nations, stating HIS INTENTION TO LITERALLY CENSOR THE INTERNET OF DISSENTING OPINIONS.

like he was 100% clear about it. straight up. that's not a strawman, not a hyperbole. that's literally what the fuck he said. there is 100% no way for you to gaslight this or pretend "there is no connection" fuckin' shills

File: 1499924546955.png (166KB, 1863x950px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1863x950px

>>133511635
>the problem with what your saying is that peoples ANSWER to censorship isn't the right answer. you're taking the CENSORSHIP power out of the hands of one group that is ultimately accountable to you and putting it in the hands of another that you KNOW want to censor you and has even LESS accountability.

Corporations are the ones with less accountability, shill.

The People of the United States have a legal founding document called the US Constitution that lawfully prevents the US Government from enacting censorship. The FCC could not censor websites even if they wanted.

>>133511566
>They want to repeal Net Neutrality laws so they can start breaking down the internet and controlling what you can and cannot see
they can only exert power over their customers though? arguing for the state to have such power is much worse because you wont get a choice. And you are expected to pay for this regulation with taxes

>>133511295
Holy shit, is there no limit to your idiocy? Let me spell it out crystal clear so you can get it through your thick skull.

Net Neutrality does not mean complete government control over the internet. Net Neutrality is fucking necessary until something can be done about the monopolies. Less government interference is a good thing. But since corporations are literally fucking everything up we need this tiny little regulation.

>>133511889
>The US Government and the FCC cannot start censoring these websites without violating the first amendment of the US Constitution.
ok mr child porn poster

>>133511983
wow, just wow. i hope more people follow this comment thread and just marvel at your stupidity. it REALLY genuinely is lost upon you why you can't create NO government through legislation and massively beefing up the government to control every aspect of life and economics? like really? we're really even having this discussion right now? this is a real thing?

File: 1437098100270.jpg (26KB, 383x287px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 383x287px

>>133511993

Is King Nigger president right now? Didn't think so.

Net Neutrality is the government telling ISPs they can't throttle speeds based on content type. It doesn't set up a data regulation agency in the government; in fact, it does the express opposite.

Literally shatter yourself my man. You're so fucking dumb I'm actually done talking with you.

>>133512182
>Net Neutrality is fucking necessary until something can be done about the monopolies. Less government interference is a good thing. But since corporations are literally fucking everything up we need this tiny little regulation.
so you are recognizing the answer is to end government regulation. SHRINK government and allow competition, which will allow choice, and pander to the free market by not censoring, is the answer. cool. i'm glad we agree!

>>133512022
>Corporations are the ones with less accountability, shill.
Is that why enron is still around? Oh wait no they arent because when they fucked up they couldnt force everyone to pay taxes and keep the charade going

>>133512182
Jesus Christ you must be taking back dicks so far up your ass that they're hitting your brain and causing damage.

I'm not talking about NN. I'm talking about the Internet becoming title II you stupid fucking kike shill.

File: FeelsStormboot.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>>133504111
Who do i want tocontrol the internet?
The government who the people voted for and can take out, or a private company that i have no say in whats so ever. Really makes me think.

>>133512022
>The People of the United States have a legal founding document called the US Constitution that lawfully prevents the US Government from enacting censorship
wrong. there's nothing in the first amendment that prevents the government from simply shutting down access to a website like wikileaks or even 4chan. it only prevents them from prosecuting websites like wikileaks or 4chan. but even that goes out the window once they manage to spin it as "wikileaks and 4chan are threats to the united states of america" "treasonous" or "foreign powers interfering with our elections"

>>133512495
>you voted for the FCC chair and co.

God damn you are dumb

>>133512216
Is that supposed to be English? Are you drunk, perhaps? What are you trying to say? And why the fuck are you so sensitive?

>>133512495
>The government who the people voted for and can take out
election fraud shits on that idea

File: 1492384735479.png (798KB, 834x986px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 834x986px

>>133512061
>they can only exert power over their customers though?
That's correct. And they own the market. They run the market through legally enforced monopolies that they have BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. The EVIL MARKET REGULATIONS REEEEE RUINING MUH FREE MARKET REEE shit that you're so angry about, is not being caused by the Government. It is not being caused by the Net Neutrality legislation that currently exists.

It is being caused by the very ISP's trying to convince you to repeal net neutrality "so the free market can take over" e.g. so they can scam suckers like you. Because these ISP's are going from state to state and buying vendor lock-in contracts stipulating 1-2 ISP's in entire states. The market regulations you care so much about are being bought by the corporations themselves.


>arguing for the state to have such power is much worse because you wont get a choice.
If the US Government became so totalitarian that it wouldn't abide by the US constitution any longer, do you REALLY think they'd look at the corporations and just go, "Oh well, we wanted to censor the internet but the corporations control it so we can't, bummer."

Come ON nigger. The CIA practically CONTROLS the mainstream media. If anything, letting the corporations control the internet is exactly how they'd enact government censorship via the back door. E.g. Project Mockingbird.

Only a shill could be this intentionally obtuse.

>>133512680
>They run the market through legally enforced monopolies that they have BOUGHT AND PAID FOR
and your solution is to give the entity that made this possible, even more power?
LOL

>>133505189
if it's a fact, then cite a fucking source

>>133512564
>FCC chair
Put there by Donald Trump. Who i voted for.

>>133512266
He's a paid shill

Has to whore and debase himself for the sake of a few shekels. Look on him with pity, as he's lost his humanity and his agency, and is now more akin to a puppet than a human.

>>133512846
I don't like the FCC chair and I hope Trump replaces him.

If Trump knew how CNN et al plan to silence his online base through repeal of net neutrality and leverage of their market monopolies, he'd have never put the guy in that chair in the first place.

File: 1448305445262.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>133504111
>>133504111
>muh censorship
We have NN now and somehow the government doesn't censor the internet. Meanwhile monopolist ISPs sure as fuck can and would throttle shit like 4chan (because normies only care about faceberg and ISP would rather direct their bandwidth to it than random other sites), torrents (because only pirate hackers need them anyway and they're a pain in the ass for ISPs) or VPNs (who cares about pedophile terrorist traffic anyway).

>>133512930
the majority of states have failed
>that wasnt real statism
>this regulation is gonna turn everything around!
>just a few more taxdollars

>>133504111
Been waiting for someone to make a concise post on this. Well done, OP. However, I suggest we drop the memeflags for a bit since the raiding leftists are almost exclusively using them to identify each other. In typical (totally not ironic in any way) liberal "fashion", they're only using white supremacist type flags. (Nazi, Confederate etc)

>>133512356
Yeah, but in the case of Net Neutrality there needs to be something done with the ISP not allowing competition first. The States just isn't ready yet I feel.

>>133512595
so you basically are just recognizing that you have no substance or merit to what you're saying and trying to cover up with ad hominems about my grammatical style, right? k, thanks for playing "try to stump OP", maybe you'll have more luck next time!

>>133512657
>>133512495
no no no. once things are censored there's no more ability for the people to control the government because that's ultimately predicated upon them having information. as obama says in the video, he wants to go back to the days when walter cronkite told america what to believe, and that was IT! NOBODY knew different! there was no internet! just 3 MSM television channels and they all told you the same thing! the same pre-approved narrative! whoever they wanted to win an election WON! so no. your whole fuckin' point here is bunk. YOU do have say in a private company though, WHEN there is competition (we need to deregulate) by not buying their product and taking your money elsewhere and that is a power you have over them that nobody can take away from you!

File: 1492385798810.jpg (2MB, 1704x2272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1704x2272px

>>133513152
>Meanwhile monopolist ISPs sure as fuck can and would throttle shit like 4chan (because normies only care about faceberg and ISP would rather direct their bandwidth to it than random other sites), torrents (because only pirate hackers need them anyway and they're a pain in the ass for ISPs) or VPNs (who cares about pedophile terrorist traffic anyway).

And this becomes even more obvious once you actually look at who the people involved in these monopolist ISP's are.

I'll point out again, for the sake of it: Time Warner is CNN. Comcast is MSNBC.

We only need to look at what those two fraud news networks do to cable television. We all know damned well that without net neutrality preventing it, they'd be trying to do the exact same thing to the internet. This isn't just a hypothetical anymore, it is past being obvious that these companies and the people who control them, want to completely control online discourse and speech just like they do on cable TV.

>>133513152
>We have NN now and somehow the government doesn't censor the internet
and when we didnt the ISPs didnt censor the internet. also less taxes

File: virgin branson.jpg (70KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x401px

>>133504111
Ah yes.

Let's let private companies decide what you see. You can change policy by buying shares.

Have no competitor in your area? Tough. Muh free market.

Well done!
>Now pay x amount for 4chan

File: 1497576407717.jpg (89KB, 481x767px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 481x767px

Net Neutrality is good because Trump said so. I love TRUMP.

>>133504111
Soros supports Net Neutrality. Plus, the government includes with free market too much isn't a good thing.

>>133513250
deregulation has to happen! that's the answer! these rich fucks and bullshit elites like /u/spez, who is the CEO of faggot plebbit, are putting these bullshit messages all over their websites and pushing their shit agenda like they're your friends because THEY DONT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN! they want the power to remain in the hands of the few high profile companies that there are! they want the government controlling EVERYTHING because it works in their interests! and shit, we all know SPEZ is fine with censorship too! THAT is their game!

if you DEREGULATE then all of these companies, which /u/spez may own stock or sit on interlocking boards of directors for, are suddenly VULNERABLE and aren't going to last because someone BETTER is going to come around and knock them out of the water!

but the PLEBS just eat this shit up by the pound. they believe WHATEVER their fuckin' elites tell them, so long as they spin it to pretend that they're looking out for THEIR interests!

>>133505888
Actually, let the burgers be shown what true corrupt corporate government looks like when they start charging extortionate amounts for access to 4chan and all those torrents and free porn.

>In B4 BASED gold package.

File: 1499849156144.png (142KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x960px

>>133513492
>Time Warner is CNN. Comcast is MSNBC.
and what makes these guys so bad?
>jews
what has more powerful jews, time warner and comcast or the federal fucking government
>hint: comcast isnt allowed to waco

>>133513630
trump is anti-net neutrality, moron. it's hard to know exactly what trump is going to do with NN, but if he stays true to his usual blueprint for these things, which means mixing scaling back the NN legislation with DEREGULATION of small business and start-ups, then the plan should work perfectly and competition should create a free and open internet without interference from conglomerates OR government!

File: Stormfags_are_JIDF_shills.png (887KB, 1042x609px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 1042x609px

>>133513854
LARPing fgt go away.

>>133509940
You absolute retard.

The government is you, you absolute MEME.

A private corporate entity that has complete control over the internet would tell you to fuck off as you own no shares in that company.

With no level playing field, it's literally gonna lead to a monopoly that is private and unaccountable as it rapes you whilst you yeall

>Muh govenrment. Free-market hell yeah!

File: 1488419123527.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>133513550
That's incorrect.

First the ISP's didn't do anything because they wanted to be classed as common carriers, and were, though it wasn't enshrined or enforced in law. They BEHAVED as if they were under net neutrality.

Then they started to get uppity. They DID start to censor, block, and restrict access to content.

And the American People got Net Neutrality laws put in place to prevent and stop it.

And for the two years since that happened, we've had the internet continuing on just as it always has. But what shills like you are trying to do is strip these protections away - why?

It doesn't get rid of the market monopolies
It doesn't allow greater competition in the market
It doesn't make any prices lower

In fact, it does the opposite of all this in all cases. You aren't arguing for freedom of the people, you are arguing for the bottom line of corporations that want to control what people can say and think online. The same corporations that are already trying to control what people say and think on cable television. Not even in the "they're similar" but in the "They're the exact same corporations" way.

Shills we are not going to sell the future of humanity down the drain for the sake of a bunch of shitty corporations that want no more than to enslave us.

Get fucked.

>>133513854
>what has more power government that must ensure that all traffic is treated equal or ISPs that could literally do whatever the fuck they want with it?

File: 671o2p5.jpg (119KB, 1241x1019px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1241x1019px

>>133513854
Here, I'll show you what makes CNN and MSNBC so bad.

File: 1473198759680.jpg (128KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1024x768px

>>133513854
By the way, this is how I know for a fact that you're a shill AND a newfag.

>>133513606
>Have no competitor in your area? Tough. Muh free market.
look who obviously didn't read the thread. yeah you have no competition BECAUSE of GOVERNMENT! so you're looking at the person causing the problem and saying "lets give that entity more power and control over things that are important to us, hurrrr durrr!"

no. deregulate small business and startup. let the free market generate competition. then you will have a free and open internet and that is the ONLY way you will EVER have a fucking free and open internet because US heads of state have made it CLEAR that they intend to censor political discourse if they get the chance to

>>133507119
Again, why haven;t you been censored?

Oh but you have by the movie and record companies lobbying to block websites.

Those companies are private but want control to bum you; what makes comcast immune to such tactics with less regulation by a democratic body?

File: 1481446712272.png (989KB, 1536x636px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 1536x636px

>>133513854
>>133514118

>>133513972
>the government is you

And you call me a retard? I can't imagine how hard life is for you. I'm so sorry God made you mentally retarded. You probably deserve it though so fuck you.

File: 1487329649169.jpg (29KB, 400x217px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x217px

>>133513854
>>133514152

>>133514134
So how do you prevent comcast having a monopoly?

File: 1495258023475.jpg (202KB, 991x942px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 991x942px

>>133513854
>>133514183

>>133505888
>It's impossible for new businesses to come up because shit's retarded
You're retarded and don't know shit about our laws. There are plenty of new, indie ISPs that people can choose. They're just getting bullied by bigger companies and have a limited range. If only there were laws limiting monopolies! Oh wait ;^) W-WELL WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING???

Because, it's not that the laws are retarded, they're just limited and usually specific. That's why new laws need to be created and existing laws need to be updated.

>Whenever a companies tries to establish another option
>REEEE
>Just look at Google!
Hi, 'beta. You realize Google isn't the only one with fiber, right? Even smaller companies are offering those options.

The more Pro-Net Neutrality arguments I hear, it's either lazy people, actual commies, or people that are totally clueless and only think what they're doing is the right thing, without any research.
>Pic related is what should be happening!
>It's a fucking headline
Surprise, surprise.

Leaf, when you get arrested for breaking a law in Thailand, I hope you realize what a retarded idea "Net Neutrality" was.

File: 1496875713567.png (838KB, 737x755px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 737x755px

>>133513854
>>133514225

File: Gx78iHh.jpg (102KB, 1024x602px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x602px

>>133513854
>>133514268

>>133513903
>Moron
Of less than 100 posts, 26 by this rude boy annoying fuck face. Why are you so rude you fucking cock-socket? You groveling little cunt.

>>133504111
>>133504412
>>133504789
>>133505189
>>133507353
>>133507570
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OP, fuck off to whatever shithole you came from because today my friend you got BTFO

File: 2c2a019c4223450a508b55bca1064de78f9ea5933a50d5b2633ec0f5ecfd3dc5.jpg (63KB, 619x519px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 619x519px

>>133513854
>>133514302

>>133513776
Actually, let us Americans do our politics our own fucking way without you communist faggots trying to sway our opinions because you want "FREE***" porn. It's always "FREE***" shit with you lazy fucking faggots. Maybe because you're homeless and get your "FREE***" internet at Starcucks.

File: 1473198238213.jpg (161KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x768px

>>133513854
>>133514344

this whole net neutrality thing has really opened my eyes to how many shills there are working for big corporations / isps in this place. No wonder there is a new "trump general" thread every single moment of every single day in this place. No wonder there is a constant stream of republican dick sucking, no matter what they do. They want to cut 22 million people from heath care, and yet many are STILL defending that decision. You fucking shills are pathetic. I understand supporting Trump and Republicans for many reasons, but they also keep crossing the line, and that is when you have to stand up and say NO. NOT ANYMORE. GIVE US WHAT YOU PROMISED. Instead they are fucking you in the ass, and you're screaming "YES PLEASE MORE DADDY"

File: lies_about_terrorist_attack.jpg (107KB, 573x762px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 573x762px

>>133513854
>>133514389

This is why that crazy son of a bitch McAffe was also trying to promote some meshnet thing. The government wants to control the internet so they can fuck you, the corporate telecoms own the people who make the laws and they pay the bribes to make sure they don't have to compete, the only solution is to make something that the governments and corporations both can't fuck with. cast a wide mesh net spread by the people for the people.

File: 1496613430971.png (469KB, 745x643px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 745x643px

>>133513854
>>133514446
>and what makes these guys so bad?

He says. What a fucking joke these shills are.

>>133514153
You retard, a corrupt state is not an argument for less accountability you donut. It requires you and me and everyone to get involved. Your faith in the market is stupid as you believe in the market being solely by being able to enact ethics through consumer choice.
let's have a go at running the country in a free market.

>The annual, do what you FEEL festival.

Good luck trying to remove OmniCorp. Inc. from office.

Fuck sake, even Hitler understood the state needs to represent us to stamp out retardation like yours.

>>133514316
Fuck off you dumb nigger.

>>133514136
why haven't we been censored? because the laws have been MOVING in the direction of giving more control to the state steadily over time. the internet was just recently basically declared a public utility, thus more theoretically subject to control by the government. NOW they're at a point where they are openly lobbying for censorship. i posted a video of obama doing it at the UN in the OP. we all know HRC has done the same thing, many many times, before and especially in the wake of the election. we see the coordinated push to censor what the left deems as "fake news sites", that aren't really "fake news sites" at all (not that it would matter if they WERE) so all of this is real and it's happening. you don't get to cry "conspiracy theory" or "slippery slope". it's here. it's on our doorstep. it's what's right now.

and your example of movie and record companies only hurts your argument. they're lobbying GOVERNMENT to block them, right?

>>133514316
>Cock-socket.

Ah yes, what the anti-neutrality cable companies address their customers as.

>Open wide.

>>133510964
So your argument is "government bad."

There is no mechanism for consumers to fix monopolies. I don't know how you think this problem is going to be solved otherwise. People have to buy internet so they can get jobs because applications are online. People have to buy internet to keep jobs because their boss expects them to reply to emails at all times. People can't vote with their wallet here. They have no way of applying pressure to ISPs, especially as IPS keep lobbying for anti-competitive laws.

>>133507520
isn't it in effect now though? how come it's not helping?

>>133514220
you fucking people. no. read the comment you replied to. you don't get to ask a question that is literally answered in the comment you are replying to and receive a second answer. fuckin' plebtards

Only newfags are anti-nn. FUck off corporate bootlickers.

>>133514520
That's a good option. We need a global meshnet. We need more ISP competition too, and better decentralized internet protocols (e.g. IPFS)

I'm hopeful that spacex actually gets their global internet thing going - that'll help. Crushing the market monopolies that the ISP's have bought for themselves also needs to happen.

Then we can potentially worry about whether net neutrality is necessary or not.

But before then? Fuck no.
It is basically giving the corps everything they want with an IOU, wink, and a promise that they won't fuck us. They're scumbags and always have been.

>>133514699
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Abbo!

>>133514707
lol

>>133514713
"muh monopolies muh monopolies muh monopolies" YOUR MONOPOLIES ARE CREATED BY GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT IGNORANT LEFTIES EAT UP BECAUSE THEY'RE SOLD TO THEM WITH CUSHY LANGUAGE OR NOBLE IDEALS (LIKE "CARBON TAX" FOR EXAMPLE).

BUT YET YOU ALL STILL DEFEND GOVERNMENT AND PRETEND THAT LIBERALS AND LEFTIES WHO REGULATE SMALL BUSINESS OUT OF EXISTENCE ARE "THE ENEMY OF CORPORATIONS!"

YEAH, THAT'S WHY CORPORATIONS DONATE SO MUCH MONEY TO DEMONCRATS, RIGHT??

TAKE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE EQUIATION, DEREGULATE THE BUSINESS AND WATCH COMPETITION SPRING UP EVERYWHERE, SMASHING MONOPOLY'S EVERYWHERE AND ALLOWING FOR A FREE MARKET TO DEMAND A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET.

FUCK IT'S REALLY SIMPLE NOT THAT COMPLICATED

YOU'VE BEEN HAD, STUPID!

>>133504111
>Obama = comunist
>pushing for more goverment
your argument makes total sense man, first this joke of net neutrality and then you got free health care, next will be education and the US will be 1000% comunist.

And then colapse

We should all push to end net neutrality. We must continue to let capitalism run rampant, or the proles will never see it for what it is.

File: Amreicaaah.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>133514381
Brilliant.
I will setup a company to poison your water and sell it to you for a regular cleaning fee.

I will buy up your infrastructure such as roads, bridges, electricity, water, gas and I will charge you the maximum your puny paycheck allows.

Enjoy your upcoming dystopia where you get paid to be brutally raped and can do nothing about it.
You Americans are idiots; you have everything and yet remain the most stupid people on earth.

Never has so little been achieved by so many with such great resources. Go stuff your face you over-consuming lard bucket.
>The absolute state of over-fed Turkeys voting for Christmas,

File: 1492385998151.jpg (264KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 683x1024px

>>133514771
Because net neutrality has nothing to do with market competition or making the market more free.

This is one of the things the shills keep trying to conflate together. They're trying to trick people into believing that NN is keeping corps from being able to compete.

But that is not the case. The corps are creating contracts that prevent market competition in the areas they operate in.
e.g.

TimeWarner/CNN goes to Idaho state and says, "Here's a fat bag of cash bribes I mean donations. Sign this contract that says only we can provide internet service in your state" and the state goes, "Oh wow gee, thanks for the election money Timewarner/CNN. Let me just sign that for you"

And then a startup asks the state if they can start rolling out fiber and providing internet, and the state says, "sorry bud we'd love to, but the state is locked into a contract with timewarner/CNN"

THAT is where the market monopolies are coming from. It's not from net neutrality and never has been. Net neutrality only prevents them from censoring the internet.

File: very mature.png (638KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 666x1000px

>>133514389
>When you're so assblasted about the opposition taking the lead, you look at what could have been, despite it not being that way

I feel no remorse for the tears I have absorbed.

>>133514433
>In b4 muh shill.
>All hail Trump.

/pol never was and never will be a fucking echo-chamber or personal army for these absoluet fuckery fucks.

You are right; Anons need to step game up against many twats.

>>133515313
They truly are a dumb people

>>133515245
>>Obama = comunist
>>pushing for more goverment
>your argument makes total sense man, first this joke of net neutrality and then you got free health care, next will be education and the US will be 1000% comunist.
>And then colapse

that is the idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

wikipedia is very left-leaning though. fucking chuck norris explains it better - > http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/the-obama-clinton-cloward-piven-legacy/

File: f19.jpg (22KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 277x296px

>>133512680
>the government gave them the power to abuse their companies as monopolies!

>"what's the solution?"

>MORE GOVERNMENT

File: zuck.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>133515498
CPS
Ah!! Nice post.

File: 1483904555033.png (513KB, 742x749px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 742x749px

Don't worry guys Trump clearly cares about you and the internet right?

File: banksy-2-War Capitalism.jpg (50KB, 660x421px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 660x421px

>>133514700
You do realise the entities wanting censorship the most have been

>MPAA
>Recording industry.
>Corporations involved in media.

But yeah, good luck. The rest of the world will miss your hilarious posts as your country descends into the inevitable civil war.

>Civil War
>Sponsored by muh-freemarket.Inc.

i am a simple man. if comcast is lobying a law. I am against it. btw net neutrality is big guys. do somethink if u live in usa

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

50KB, 1880x342px

Here's a few more well-put arguments by other anons on 4chan.

Don't listen to the anarchist shills arguing for greater corporate control over the internet. They're paid crackwhores with ill-reasoned arguments full of holes.

>>133515715
>the corporations bribed and bought the power to abuse their market position and create monopolies!
>"what's the solution?"
>MORE CORPORATION

Don't be a fucking idiot.

>>133515824
>US Public Education
>Good for anything

It cannot be completely defunded at the federal level quickly enough.

They say she has no education degree and hasn't worked in Public Education as though these are bad things.

File: pol autism.jpg (4KB, 250x235px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x235px

>>133514713

You're arguing with a 12 year old. Let's move on. He won't understand.. He'll drink the cum of a thousand dicks before he spits out the truth.

>>133513746
Well, perhaps you're more optimistic than me hah. We'll see I guess.

>>13351422

>Because, it's not that the laws are retarded, they're just limited and usually specific. That's why new laws need to be created and existing laws need to be updated.
Yes, i agree with this. But abolishing net neutality isn't the way to do it. The laws are absolutely fucked and do nothing but limit the free market.

>Hi, 'beta. You realize Google isn't the only one with fiber, right? Even smaller companies are offering those options.
Google was a go to example, there are other ISPs that try to move in and lo and behold are stopped by bigger companies. Googles the best example because they are one of the only few to actually pull it off and damage some of the monopolies.

>>Pic related is what should be happening!
>>It's a fucking headline
>Surprise, surprise.
???? Yeah, we have actual competition between companies here as opposed to monopolies. They should be competing but they carved up the map like a mafia so they wouldn't invade on each other.

>Leaf, when you get arrested for breaking a law in Thailand, I hope you realize what a retarded idea "Net Neutrality" was.
What the fuck does this even mean? I'll be crying that the government didn't tell ISPs to treat all data equally?

>>133514812
You idiot, all you've said is
>Muh free market

Where have you shown how you prevent Comcast from buying up the rival through a hostile takeover?

File: 8_compressed.png (3MB, 951x3535px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 951x3535px

And a reminder that these threads are being shilled to fuck on the board, starting yesterday.

The media companies are using this anti-net neutrality crap as their next weapon against 4chan.

>>133515890
OR.

FOLLOW ME HERE LEAF.

OR.

WE TAKE AWAY THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR ABILITY TO CREATE THESE SITUATIONS.

dumbass.

>>133515837
>You do realise the entities wanting censorship the most have been

your fucking netflix bullshit doesn't mean anything next to the united states presidents declaration that he wants to remove opposing viewpoints from the internet.

and if you actually had two brain cells to rub together and thought about it, you'd see why you're fucking litle cute argument makes no sense.

if you're a fucking consumer, ANY CONSUMER, especially pleb media obsessed consumer, WHICH FUCKING INTERNET PROVIDER ARE YOU GOING TO BRING YOUR BUSINESS TO?? THE ONE THAT CENSORS ALL OF THE FREE MOVIES AND SONGS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE AND HEAR? OR THE ONES THAT DON'T DO THAT?!

that's the fucking POINT! DEREGULATE this business. take government OUT of the mix totally. allow COMPETITION to create a FREE MARKET and "wah wah wah" whine about your free market all you want, but with government already stating that they will censor us THIS IS FACTUALLY THE ONLY WAY FORWARD THAT WOULD EVER EVEN POSSIBLY HAVE A CHANCE OF WORKING TO SAVE THE INTERNET AS IT PRESENTLY IS TODAY. and i'm not the fucking shill. you are the fucking shill. all of you people arguing with me are the fucking shills whether you realize it or not.

File: Police Viz.jpg (104KB, 500x632px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x632px

>>133514955
>For each time the company jizzes into their moist orifices, that'll be 10 dollars.
>Upgrade to sweet tasting jizz for just 30 dollars a month.
>Premium package cums with the highest quality jizz with new special flavours. Order now and you'll receive complimentary anal rape.

>>133516389
by making corporate monopolies have more control? Fuck off. NN has worked fine and continues to work. Go tell your boss at Comcast to stop shilling on 4chan

>>133516504
Yeah!!

>>133515313
>Poisoning people
I'm not sure where this is connected with internet, so could you explain your retarded food analogy, fat ass? Is pic related a relative of yours?

>I'll buy up your infrastructure!
>Then I'll charge you as much as the law will allow!
You act as if this is evil somehow or people don't already do this everywhere. You truly are a clueless, homeless loser sipping coffee at Starcucks, aren't you? I was only joking before but now I'm starting to think I struck a nerve.

>MUH DYSTOPIA
I can only hope that day comes so I can hear your fragile bottom break as it crashes to the ground. Your head is full of hot air and needs to be deflated.
>Rape victims can't defend themselves
My sides are in orbit. Lefty cucks honestly believe this. No wonder they're so fragile, reactionary, and scared of everything. They're literally helpless little babies! I hope you didn't shit yourself in a public place, after reading what I wrote, snowflake! Wouldn't want you to be asked to leave and stop shitposting :^(

>Muh resources
Yeah, resources you don't have. Aren't you jealous? I bet you could do SOO much with all these resources we have! It's really too bad you can't fight us and steal it all - not with that current refugee crisis you're so proud of, or all that debt you're incurring from said crisis. Enjoy!

>Go stuff your face
At least I can haha What's it like to actually starve to death? I wouldn't know. I have a job.

>Being this mad at success
Stay mad, racist antifag.

>>133515403
Why not simply point to how much the companies have given to the anti-neutrality lobbying?

Matter of fact, how do anti-neutrality retards feel about corporate lobbying?

>>133508958
Lets see our options

A- I'm stuck with the government who is constantly trying to fuck me
B- I'm stuck with a variety of companies who are mostly too busy fucking each other to fuck me.
C- You're a faggot and op is a shill.

The answer is clear.

>>133516389
Or

And follow me, corporate shill

OR

We smash the market monopolies - the fraud news networks - trying to take control of the internet

Dumbass.

File: 1499912608182.jpg (3MB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 10000x10000px

So we live in an age where it seems every company out there is virtue signalling and pushing an agenda, even if they take a few financial hits from doing so. Big internet companies censoring left and right, "silently" manipulating things, shaping them at will to try to force feed their narratives. And during this time when all this is happening, you guys want to hand over the internet to these companies in a nation where most people don't even have a choice between two isps. Yea, totally makes since.

>>133516548
No, you dumbass, no one wants to give them control.

Why do you Neanderthal faggots equate not giving power to government to giving power to corporations?

Take away regional contracts and lessen regulation. Take away corporations power in government. Build competition

Why are you socialist boot lickers so mentally deficient, you don't understand this?

>>133504111

Jesus fucking christ, you shills are out in full force today

File: pepe brit vs usa.png (664KB, 797x601px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 797x601px

>>133515497
It's alright, boomerang BASED sheila, we'll watch them tail off as they get banned from 4chan for breaching their comcast data agreements.

>>133504111

I didn't know Comcast executives posted on /pol/

File: 1496814795381.png (2MB, 858x612px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 858x612px

>>133515497
I know you don't mean that. You're just in an abusive relationship.

File: cfff89ca4616e41720138cfe46db8324--homemade-costumes-grass.jpg (41KB, 292x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 292x400px

>>133516805
>"I want to take away corporations power by getting rid of government allowed regional monopolies and allow true competition"

>"CORPORATE SHILL!!"

File: britpol.jpg (78KB, 432x382px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 432x382px

>>133515844
Simple and effective.

>>133516219
>You idiot, all you've said is
>>Muh free market

oh yeah that's really ALL i've fucking said in this huge thread and in even in the OP. yeah, sure bro, makes sense. kek.

>Where have you shown how you prevent Comcast from buying up the rival through a hostile takeover?

it's funny how you people make this argument as if it's so magical and truthful and yet it does seem that in every instance when government deregulates and gets the fuck out of everyones face competition DOES spring up and they do manage to offer competing sources for product. isn't that just a miracle of fucking society that it happens with such regularity as to almost be an immutable law of human economic nature or something.

it's almost like these big companies you pretend to hate so badly actually SUPPORT dem candidates and donate MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO THEM because they know that these regulations that they love to pass in the name of noble and lofty aspirations only serve them and wipe out would-be competitors.

it's almost like it's been planned this way from day one or something and you fools have just been too stupid to see how you're getting exploited because you cling so desperately to your "bu bu but muh dumbocrats r my friends who want wuts best 4 me!"

>>133516696
They seem to just 100% ignore it.

Even when the corporations are bribing government officials, they try and blame everything on the government and act like the corporations did nothing wrong.

>>133516736
But that's wrong, retard.

The corporations AREN'T fighting each other. They're colluding. They're the same fraud news networks colluding on cable TV who have been trying to shut trump down for well over a year now.

And you think they're "too bust fucking each other to fuck you"? Feel free to leave your fantasyworld and come back to reality at any fucking time m80.

You give the likes of CNN the power to censor the internet, you better not be fucking surprised when they start censoring the fucking internet. And they will.

I don't understand how people can be so fucking STUPID about this.

File: IMG_1999.jpg (177KB, 1300x862px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1300x862px

>>133504111
>0.02 cents have been deposited into your account

>>133504111
>>net neutrality takes the ability to censor the internet out of the hands of cable and telecommunications companies, and places that ability squarely in the hands of the US government
Bullshit.
> BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BUY INTERNET FROM SOMEBODY WHO TELLS THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT SEE.
Yet that is exactly what internet companies are trying to do.
>remember in october when obama handed off control of our internet to the UN?
So basically Obama supported net neutrality so it's bad? Fuck off with your retarded tribalistic view of politics amerishart. Obama did a lot of shit with the internet but net neutrality isn't one of them.
>that's why all of the "elites" are pushing it. that's why all of the "globalists" are pushing it. that's why plebbits front page is full of special messages and bullshit regarding this issue.
"I-If you support net neutrality you are from plebbit. And a globalist. Get out, REEEEEEE."

File: hislop based enfield.gif (2MB, 436x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 436x360px

>>133515890
He thinks the government have been unfair to the corporations which has made them have to act bad.

Ah, poor OmniCorp. Inc. Bless. All they want is to own your bumhole. Why won't the government let them rape all of us?

>Ignores that the defence and large conglomerates have essentially rolled back hard won rights for the past 50 years by intense lobbying and marketing and bribery.

The state of these nonces.

>>133517144
wut? wut a literal wall of nothing

>>133516976
Getting rid of net neutrality will do NOTHING about the market monopolies

You cum sucking shills keep trying to conflate the two to confuse people.

NN keeps them corporations from censoring the internet.

Meanwhile the market monopolies you bitch about are caused by the ISP's bribing and buying their monopolistic positions.

They are two different things.

If you want the market to be more free and fair, you need to kill the market monopolies, not attack net neutrality.

But you won't argue for that because you're nothing but a dicklover.

>>133516003
>>133515970
>>133515890

Well done.Keep /pol BASED

>>133517144
>another dumb nigger who reads just the OP and immediately comments
kys fucking useless nigger

>>133516026
Yeah but now imagine a Scientologist only schooled person assuming that power.

File: 1475258392117.png (112KB, 688x1434px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 688x1434px

>>133516859
>Because we shitpost here more often than you
Admit you're an outsider more. It wasn't obvious enough with your retarded memeflag. You leddit and lefty cucks always stick out like sore thumbs, even when you try to be sneaky and blend in.

i just want to say, i highly recommend people highlight my comments and go back and read the things i've said about this. i'm one of the only ones really speaking the truth here and it does seem that even the majority of /pol/ just doesn't "get" this one

>>133516502
>You have infringed comcasts terms of service.
>Your access to 4chan is blocked.
>Please call to pay a waiver fee.

>>133517597
You sir are a fucking S H I L L

File: digits.png (21KB, 670x800px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 670x800px

>>133504111
HOLY SHIT THEM DIGITS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcf9CLMQuRQ

File: 1493648168888.gif (899KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 540x540px

>>133504111
Not a redpill. You should instead focus on the west coast jew corporations who push for net neutrality, why it saves them money, and how they censor the internet on the DNC's behalf.

>>133517590
It's actually you anti-NN shills who are obviously the outsiders here, I mean, just look at this fucking post: >>133513854

>>133515403
so for the start-ups:
they can't compete with net neutrality already in place
they can't compete without net neutrality because the corps have more power

for the corps:
less power under net neutrality
more power without net neutrality

for the gubment:
more power with net neutrality
less power without net neutrality

so it's get fucked now by corps vs potential to get fucked in the future by the government. i guess the deciding factor is whether or not you believe the government will attempt to regulate the internet more. also a factor is which of these entities you think would be easier to take power back off if they began to abuse it

>>133517958
Fuck off NDP shill.

>>133516689
>Flint
Pic is the state of your country lad.

You are the most indebted country.

>>133517590
>Y-yes mr.shekelbergstein throttle my internet daddy i been a bad goy

Kill yourself corporate bootlicker

>>133517954
>Not a redpill
Look at all the bluepilled niggers ITT and on this board who think (((NN))) is good.

File: 1472119470242.png (202KB, 1242x665px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1242x665px

>>133517597
You're nothing but a corporate shill.

Get fucked. We've completely obliterated every point you tried to make, and we keep blowing you the fuck out as the thread continues.

Feel free to mouthfuck a shotgun any day, faggot. We're not letting corporate fucktards like you control political discourse on this board.

>>133517379
I'll argue for it, though I live in a state where most cities have 25+ ISPs

And I'll still attack net neutrality because I know my federal government very very well.

>>133518102
Aren't we the ones with the most guns though?

>>133504111
Shut the fuck up you contrarian cunts. Just because leftists and Redditards support something doesn't make it bad. Stop trying to take the opposing stance on everything and trying to spin it to blame the Jews.

>>133518051
>they can't compete with net neutrality already in place
>they can't compete without net neutrality because the corps have more power

No, jesus christ how do you not get this.

Net neutrality has NOTHING to do with market competition.
NOTHING.

>>133517135
Because deep down they hate democracy.

They hate the fact that a poor working class persons vote is the same weight as their own.

They feel the companies are simply doing what they themselves would do if they ran that company; BTFO of government because who the fuck should tell me what to do?

>Do what you FEEL.
They then LARP about muh degeneracy and ignore how BASED Hitler was on these very topics.

>>133512545
>The "They didn't have assault rifles and tanks back when the second ammendment to the US constitution was written" argument is now actually going to be applied to the first regarding the internet.

They said this day would never come.

>>133518120
Just saying OP explained it badly, could even be a shill so anons can go "lol look anti-NN = ancuck" but I don't think that

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>133518234

>>133516840
Capped and saved for future Mad Max generation. We tried to warn them.

>>133518209
Yeah, but net neutrality is still being repealed so your left-wing censorship has no power here.

>>133516548
All it will do is open up more options for purchase. You'll still have july 2017 shit tier internet to choose from but then you'll have better service providers. The more I think about it the more pro NN sound like luddites.

>>133504438
Hi Retard.

Dial Up by the Hour was popularized by AOL, who used it as a gimmick to get people to buy into their infrastructure.

You were so busy being a faggot that you forgot to realize paying for 1000 hours that expires in 1 month is the same as paying for 1 month of service.

File: who is behind NN.png (3MB, 1728x2180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1728x2180px

>>133517958
I don't care what someone else said about the issue. You're cherry picking and acting as if your side is the smartest by virtue? Your arguments are weak. The most I've seen is "KEK SHILLS" when you don't even realize you're giving the FCC and GOVERNMENT more power over EVERYONE'S free speech? Why do Canadians, Australians etc care so much about what "stupid and fat" Americans do with our politics anyways? Oh, that's right. Because you faggot cucks follow suit, right? Or do you just want us to be more like you, so you feel less retarded about your bad decisions?

Seriously, I thought you antifa faggot liberals were supposed to be ANTI-Government. Why are you trying to give the government more power? Is it because you think it will censor our "totally racist" opinions? Lmao you don't even realize how btfo you'd be, if you pushed for this, and got censored, do you? Did you even consider that possibility? Wtf I love Net Neutrality now!

Idiots. If you want someone to understand why you are pro or anti anything, the best way to go about it is to explain how you understand it and what's appealing to you. But no, side with the big corporations in another big corporation attempt to stop the big corporations.

The easiest way to pick a side is to see who supports what.

>>133518300
Just because /pol/ supports something doesn't make it bad, ahill~

>>133504111
This, it's a Jewish trick.

>>133518234
No, you're a useful idiot at best.

99% of the country does not have 25+ ISP's.

99% of the country will not be able to choose providers that provide free access to any and all websites and content.

And quite frankly, you probably won't either, because once 99% of the population is locked out of 4chan or whatever, it'll be you posting here alone until the site is shut down.

How stupid can someone be that they're literally begging to be pegged in their fucking pozhole?

>>133518545
Shill*

>>133518051
False equivalence. The lack of competition has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's caused by the massive barriers to entry to starting a competing ISP company. If you want to start a competitive ISP company, you need to lay your own cables. This costs millions of dollars and takes years to do. Current ISPs have also made deals with local municipalities to deny permitting for new cable laying, so even if you walk in with bags of money ready to go, you run into tons of red tape that you have to fight in court.

So to start a competitive ISP, you need to spend millions on millions of dollars and invest several years before you can serve a single customer.

>>133505888
Shaw and Telus are bed buddies though.
They always charge exactly the same and raise prices at the exact same time.
If they wanted to actually compete then the cost would be much much lower. There is no possible way each customer needs to pay $70 to cover operating fees, that is a least 80% profit, likely more since running an ISP is very low maintenance once the framework is already in place.

ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY IS A JEW SHILL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7J1o67-Qjo

Holy fucking shit, this video drops hard fucking redpills.

Net Neutrality is jewish in nature and brainwashes our children.

Enjoy being docile human beings for the rest of your life.

Get fucked niggers

Net Neutrality is inherintly anti-fascist. We need digital fascism to prevent the populace being brainwashed by useless information.

You're the ones LARPing as a """"Crusader"""" and then when someone takes your stupid little internet away you cry like a big stupid baby. Get fucked nigger

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Telcom Companies setting up different Internet Deals. Afterall it is annarcho capitalistic.

Go back to plebbit, niggers

>>133518591
But when a Silicon Valley website censors is your fellow shills go "well who cares use another website"

So fuck your fake concern trolling bro.

>>133518407
Definitely not a shill. Far too much passion in his posts.

>>133504111
As long as we don't have a free market, because of state sanctioned and enforced ISP monopolies, net neutrality laws will be necessary.

I agree with you OP that the ultimate goal is a free market internet. But we're not even close, and in the interim, net neutrality benefits us more than not having it.

>>133510147
>>133510801
>>133513972
It's not technically "government control", they just outsource the censoring to companies like Google.

Yet somehow we're the corporate shills because >HURRRR ANCAPS LOL.

File: 1492384543516.jpg (1MB, 3204x2136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3204x2136px

>>133518485
Here's a list of just a few of the media companies trying to repeal net neutrality laws:

CNN
Time Warner
MSNBC
Comcast
Verizon
NBC

And you call net neutrality "left wing censorship"
Fuck dude, it's the "left wing" censorship squads that are trying to get rid of it!

This should help make it apparent to anyone else reading just how disingenuous the liars are.

>>133508992
>panama
every home there has fiber once net niggerdom was no longer in effect there.
Guess what when info is censored people really do go that far out of their way to find the new private isp that popped up.

>>133518102
>More cherry picking from the bottom-bruised leftover
>>133518119
Suck muzzy cock, dingofucker.

>We's ad hominem now
Good debate.

>>133518707
>We need digital fascism to prevent the populace being brainwashed by useless information

Nigga you realize if you get rid of net neutrality all your favorite fringe right wing news sources will get stuck behind a more expensive access plan and the masses will be stuck sucking up MSM.

>>133515159
>Why don't the ISPs give money to the democrats
Because they give money to the party that will let them keep their monopolies. Isn't that obvious? I don't know game theory but I'm pretty sure that's game theory 101.

You're right that the government has too many regulations regarding ISPs. But you're wrong if you think the big ISPs want to change anything that might allow more competition.

So yes, get rid of the regulations ISPs lobbied to be put in place. These are the anti-competitive laws I keep bringing up that need to go.

Don't pretend that it's just Democrats that made things the way they are. ISPs lobby republicans to get their shitty anti-competitive laws put in place. They are plenty at fault for the current state of internet service in America.

As long as we both agree that corporations are evil and need to be stopped from influencing government, through both republican and democrat congressmen, then we're on the same page.

File: 47222_473271149359584_1232764211_n.jpg (81KB, 598x598px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 598x598px

>>133518994
>John Oliver works for HBO which is owned by Time Warner
>Time Warner

?????

retard

>>133519056
Nah that's just what you commies hope will happen.

File: 1497505660220.jpg (80KB, 1126x704px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1126x704px

>>133518540
Holy shit, the newfag shills think all this shit about CNN, MSNBC, etc. is just cherry picking.

I have an entire folder full of these fucking liars lying their fucking asses off to the public.

How many more "cherry picked" images do you want? I have enough to flood the next three threads entirely.

>>133518209
>You're nothing but a corporate shill.

so if i'm the shill, then how come these corporations you're talking about.....why do the CEOs of them always invariably seem to support hillary clinton and other democrat candidates? if the free market benefits them so much, then why do they want to stop it?
>Get fucked. We've completely obliterated every point you tried to make, and we keep blowing you the fuck out as the thread continues.

literally never "oblterated" or even refuted a single point i made, just wrote more bullshit like this ......
>Feel free to mouthfuck a shotgun any day, faggot. We're not letting corporate fucktards like you control political discourse on this board.

also as someone who has been on /pol/ for a long time, i can tell who the real residents here are and who the fucking ANTIFA infiltrators are and you sir are very clearly an ANTIFA infiltrator with your "mouth a shotgun" rhetoric

>>133518994
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_in_favour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against

Wow that was hard.

>>133518475
But I misspelled "sense". Oh well.

>>133519170
>CNN is shit therefore democrat censorship is good

Imagine being this retarded

>>133504111
>So I can have the freemarket censor my internet which is not bound by the constitution or I can have the US government which is bound by the constitution censor it.

Ill vote for the side that voted 8 to 0 that the constitution does not define any speech as hate.

>>133507768
It's pathetic. I can't tell if they're all shills or if theyve been brainwashed by the pro-regulation (cwnsorship) propaganda effort. How hard is it to look at the list of its supporters, the Orwellian name, the media blitz in favor of it, and not want to run the opposite way?

>>133504111

Why are you acting like you don't already live under NN?

File: Untitled.png (780KB, 1698x824px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 1698x824px

>>133519286
Which one do you want instead, shill?

>>133504111
>net neutrality takes the ability to censor the internet out of the hands of cable and telecommunications companies, and places that ability squarely in the hands of the US government

That's great since the US Government is prohibited from censoring by the first amendment.

With ISPs, we have no such protection. We've seen advertisers and the left censor the news media and create monsters like CNN. You want to give these same people control of the internet?

As it is, we have recourse to technology such as VPNs to route around censorship. But allowing ISPs to throttle/disallow this takes our ability to route around censorship.

>>133519295
Except net neutrality just offloads the censorship to private corporations, so you're a regard.

>>133519402
Your anime folder.

>>133519418
>Hey, you guys hate the left censorship right? Therefore we should do everything FUCKING GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK AND TWITTER AND REDDIT WANT

These shills never stop coming ma

>>133519170
>I have an entire folder of CNN fake news
Do continue.
And yes, I've already seen the one about Hitler drinking water, so you can leave that one out.

File: 1499464227577.jpg (65KB, 680x779px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x779px

>>133519338
Because he's being paid to try and consensus crack 4chan and get people against net neutrality.

That's why he constantly lies and misdirects. Conflates net neutrality with the cause of market monopolies. Pushes off obvious corporate sponsored censorship as "the government is worse" without providing any actual evidence.

>>133519500
Sorry senpai I only got one image for that one

>>133519402

Put them all into a torrent.

>>133519631

>Conflates net neutrality with the cause of market monopolies

Yeah, the conflation is what bugs me. Because it completely preys on libertarians. NN has nothing to do with the infrastructure regulations that created the mono/duopolies.

>>133519636
Already did

https://mega.nz/#!j1xGSC5a!3o8WiKg6gwBZxn2KlwLhmDghT0nGUSgJIc_Vs9L0BBs

>>133519268
For those incredibly lazy individuals who can't copy/paste a link

In favor:
Yahoo!, Vonage,[115] eBay, Amazon,[116] IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft, Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy, Daily Kos, Greenpeace,

Against:
AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson

Notice (((anything)))?

>>133519825

Nice work.

>>133518334
that is not what i meant. i did not mean to imply that it's because of net neutrality that they cannot compete, i simply meant to point out how it stands in this current state (this current state having net neutrality). unless i'm mistaken on how competitive the american internet market is (but i believe there is none)

they already cannot compete under net neutrality because the corps are fucking them. as you said, the corps take are creating these contracts. no-one is stopping them now because your average consumer probably isn't aware they're being fucked.

without net neutrality. if corps abuse their new found power (which they will), people are going to notice the ass-fucking they get and try to fight back against the corps.

i reckon it's easier to get rid of corps going mad with power over the internet than it is to get rid of govs going mad over the inernet

>>133519631
>Anime is bluepilled now
Wha?

>>133518591
And once the federal government controls it, they will shut it down anyway.

The only reason to give all the power to one place is to make sure there's only one bribe to pay, instead of several hundred. Really effective for those who want to control information.

I an really interested though in why so many foreigners advocate us giving more power to our government.

You know how they are, why should they be trusted?

>>133504315
With net neutrality we can choose to communicate with anyone on the internet for one price.

Without net neutrality we will be encouraged via throttling and perhaps one day outright forced only to communicate in channels (sites) approved and eventually owned by our ISPs.

This will lead to fewer ISPs as it's inefficient to create different packages of channels. Bigger ISPs able to fund larger packages of content will displace the smaller ones.

So we'll have monopolistic ISPs monopolizing the ability to provide internet service, and also monopolizing content available to their customers via throttling.

>>133519876

>unless i'm mistaken on how competitive the american internet market is

Depends on the area. Majority have no real choice (unless you consider 80% packet loss 1mbps satellite a viable choice).

The shill graphs that keep being spammed neglect to mention that just because an ISP exists in an area, does not mean they provide residential service to that area.

>>133519631
>HE
Who is this "he"?

>>133518368
you didn't understand. your comparison is a false equivalence. the first amendment has nothing to do with censorship specifically, legally speaking, it only has to do with protecting private citizens from legal persecution by the government for saying something they don't like. that's literally all it does. when it comes down to it, if the government is able to take down a webpage through other legal channels, the first amendment has absolutely 100% no legal dominion there. it has nothing to do with "internet wasn't invented back then therefore the law is dated" argument that you seem to be equating what i said with

File: bb224e10a639e038a048a9cdef384b0b11cd5d40e3d8bcca5e3f6c235b9aed8c.jpg (68KB, 675x375px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 675x375px

>>133519876
Okay, I'm going to try and explain it as simply as I can to keep it clear:

Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with the lack of competition in the market. NOTHING.

Okay, I hope that made it through.
Now, what is causing the lack of competition in the market?

The ISP's are purchasing what is effectively exclusive distribution rights. They go to a town and offer that town internet service, which the town desperately needs, but lock the town into a contract that prevents any competitors also offering internet access - even IF that competitor will pay for all the infrastructure out of pocket.

The market monopolies are being created by the ISP's. They are not "victims" of it.

>>133519825
Argument aside, thanks.

File: 1498082063154.png (181KB, 400x450px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 400x450px

>>133519631
>Because he's being paid to try and consensus crack 4chan and get people against net neutrality.
>That's why he constantly lies and misdirects. Conflates net neutrality with the cause of market monopolies. Pushes off obvious corporate sponsored censorship as "the government is worse" without providing any actual evidence.

Explain to me how I'm wrong here. This is my belief of how net neutrality works and is designed to work.

ISPs want to make a couple shekels and look at their traffic logs.
Would you look at that? YouTube and Netflix use way more traffic than everyone else!
Maybe they should play a couple hundred million dollars or so to all the differs to all the regional and local ISPs out there.
Oh vey! Can't have that. Better call Mr. Steinberg in D.C. to work out a socialism.
What do we do? Oh, I know, communism. Let's turn ISPs into the scapegoat and make it illegal for them to extort us. It's not like the costs will be passed onto the consumer or anything, but we also don't care.
???
We are announcing that all homophobic or holocaust denying videos will be removed from our platform....

If something about this breakdown sounds unreasonable or inaccurate, point it out and then feel free to call me a consensus cracking shill.

>>133519849
>Panasonic
i was right to be against

>>133519785
It does for the beneficiaries of NN, not the ISPs.

>>133508365
> white supremecist flags are dumb as fuck.

This is probably a shariablue poster masquerading as a dumbass white supremacist. They figure white supremacists are a good target to paint with what is admittedly one of the Trump administration's stupider positions.

They hope to magnify disillusionment with a whole constellation of political viewpoints by highlighting the anti net neutrality stupidity.

>>133519286
How is this democrat or any censorship? Besides isn't BASED Trump in office now and not democrats?

File: slavoj zizek.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>133519276
In the future they probably won't know what sense is

File: 1499902347001m.jpg (71KB, 1024x599px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x599px

>>133518994
Fucking leafs, every time.

File: ErLot1X.jpg (80KB, 762x499px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 762x499px

>>133520302
And to explain a step further

In a number of places, the contracts actually allow 1-2 other competitors. But for some really odd reason these competitors to the big corps only offer dial-up equivalent speeds, and if you want something to actually play games or watch media with, you have to go with the single big monopolist.

This is how they try and shirk around the fact that they're still actual monopolies even when there's a couple other providers in the area.

The amount of corruption and collusion in this industry is incredible.

Sorry, the "globalists" are right, NN is a good thing. It is what we've had all this time. What we have is good, it allows cmpetition, it allows the little guy to subvert media giants, it's why the legacy media is irrelevant. There is no choice in the US, I am completely stuck with Comcast because the only other provider available (ATT) only able to offer 5MBps for some reason. That's so piss terrible, that's a virtual monopoly.

Therefore if Comcast is able to play with the dials, I have to bend over and take i t, and all because of some ancap muh-free-market faggots can pass some made up purity test.

>>133516858
Very blatant with the
>joodar.

Interns need to put down the dick and start working harder.

>>133520419

And why would I want to give the ISPs more power?

File: puddings.gif (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>133516925

>>133520501
Cause its mainly Democrat companies and celebrities lobbying for it... And the companies lobbying for of engage in censorship.

>>133519934
Only if you buy (((Funimation))) and watch (((dubs))) like a retard.

>>133520617

Think about it, they've already strong-armed entire cities into monopolies, how do you think they'll treat content once they're the regulators?

>>133508649
Water, electricity and central heating are conveniences too.

>>133517142
>underrated satire
KEK

>>133520617
Why would you care you autistic redditor? What makes ISPs the internet bogeyman and not the ACTUAL COMPANIES RAPING THE FUCKING INTERNET?

yes im mad

File: pepe British Burn US.png (434KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1000x600px

>>133517590
Next you'll be shilling for Locheed Martin shareholders on the /SG thread

>>133520584
Do you think MM4A is for or against net neutrality?

Please don't be fucking retarded about this.

>>133518994
first of all that's only like 3 companies, they're all owned by the parent companies of time warner, comcast and verizon.

CNN is total shit, so is MSNBC and NBC and all of the rest, BUT the issue here and why they're actually right on this one is because this is the sort of left-wing, pro-government, communist bullshit that is ACTUALLY GOING TO HURT THEM. so yeah, their own left-wing bullshit has come back to bite them in this case. they are directly feeling the heat from this one.

you might say "well that's good, we want CNN to feel the heat!" and yes, we do, but guess what? this doesn't help PEOPLE in any way. this just takes power from these corporations and puts it in the hands of government, which as we've determined in this thread, is absolutely openly lobbying for the right to censor dissenting political opinions.

SO you might latch on to the governments pitch of "this hurts corporations" and blindly and ignorantly decide that you wan to support this net neutrality legislation, BUT it's not the right answer.

the right answer is not being talked about ANYWHERE

the right answer is deregulating the telecom business and getting government THE FUCK OUT so that new businesses and competition can thrive. this will create a free market that BREAKS the monopoly's these companies have on this industry. when there is competition, people will take their business elsewhere when there is censorship. this is the ONLY way to protect the future of the internet in it's current form.

so yeah it's nice to say "but CNN wants it! so it's not left wing!" no. it's still left-wing. massively left-wing. it's just that it specifically hurts CNNs parent company so they hit the breaks on their left-wing shilling in this instance.

and just because it hurts CNN, doesn't mean it will help YOU.

you need to find the answer that both takes power from them and GIVES IT BACK to the people (that answer is deregulation and getting government the fuck out of ALL industry)

>>133520597
>muh internet prices more important than free speech

Greedy, commie scum

It really made me think when a lot of big companies started pushing the whole "HEY WE NEED TO STOP THIS OR BIG COMPANIES WILL FUCK YOU OVER"

>>133519620
Yet I spend most of my time on 4chan, use Startpage.com and duck duck go for search, protonmail for email and load up firefox with a million and one different privacy addons, and use a VPN ( sometimes ).

And my internet service is the same as if I used Google and facebook.

The biggest interaction I have with Google is watching Youtube vids, and I have no connection to Facebook or twitter.

>>133520802

Because I don't believe ISPs should be in control of content gating.

They are not restrained by the first amendment, they can ignore it completely.

>>133515824
????
but thats the exact person i want teaching my kids. You have to be fucking retarded to think that someone with a cultural marxism degree isn't going to indoctrinate your kids.

File: 1477472023898.jpg (169KB, 675x1000px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 675x1000px

>>133520355
>Oh vey! Can't have that. Better call Mr. Steinberg in D.C. to work out a socialism.

This is where you are wrong. The ISP's actually CAN charge netflix more. Netflix has to buy their internet access and bandwidth, and they pay the market rates and they get data transferred to anyone anywhere.

To use an analogy of what the colluding fraud networks are trying to ACTUALLY do:

You buy water from the fraud network
You use 5L of water to wash your car and get charged $50
You use 5L of water to shower and get charged $70

That is what will happen if net neutrality is repealed. Netflix IS paying for their service, but the ISP's want MORE. They want to nickle and dime, they want to shape traffic, they want their competing services. They want to slow down netflix's traffic to an area, so the ISP can sell THEIR netflix competitor and pretend like it's got better service when they're really just throttling netflix.

Whereas right now, you buy from a utility:
You use 5L of water to wash your car and get charged $50
You use 5L of water to shower and get charged $50

There isn't a difference in pricing. It doesn't matter what you use the water for. You PAID for 5L of fucking water, and you are going to use that water however you damned well fucking like.

>>133521068

>free speech
>lack of net neutrality

They are not beholden to freedom of speech, because they are not the government. They can censor anything and everything and you have no recourse besides if the FCC decided to step in and enact what you were bitching about to begin with.

>>133521018
If people still want to LARP as nazbols, they should push for trust busting instead it net neutrality which is evil and retarded.

>>133519849
>Cisco
>AT&T
>Verizon
>Qualcomm
Yeah, that's really all I needed to see. If you retards really think Cisco or AT&T has anything except their 100% best interest at heart you are by all accounts actually retarded.

Lets just give a lot more power to companies that are currently already dicking us in the mouth because, we don't want the government regulating how badly we get dicked in the mouth. Yay choices! Yay Freedom!

>>133521359

That's the thing, if you did that first, then it might make sense.

But removing NN without touching the infrastructure regulations that created the monopolies just leads to absolute power in the hands of the ISP. You will have no recourse, because there is no competition. There will be no competition, because they bid out cities. NN has nothing to do with that.

>>133521330
Tell me when the FCC steps in to regulate Silicon Valley.

Oh, rignt, they never will, because they're in the pocket and NN is designed to solely help them. But you have a passive aggressive relationship towards Comcast so clearly that's worth ruining the American experiment over.

File: anti-nn summary.jpg (147KB, 1280x303px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x303px

>>133519997
Ask the UK and Germany how letting one government rather than multiple competing ISPs have the final say over control and censorship of internet traffic worked out for them.

Never forget the most important lesson of regulatory power - giving governments power is easy, taking power back is hard.

>>133521163
Commendable, but I dont see why you support net neutrality in that case because SV censorship still affects lots of other people, unlike (((throttling))) which is DNC fear mongering.

>>133520689
Facebook and the like are private companies and can censor whatever they want. Just because you give ISPs the right to buttfuck you too, doesn't mean that faceberg would suddenly decide to change their policies.

>>133521018
The "muh free market" discussion.

A local businessman with 50 million dollars is ready and waiting for NN to be removed. Only then can he get the brightest idea to set up infrastructure and compete against the local cable company. He'll show them that his services are absolutely superior, and that people will pick his shit. 'Yeah, FUCK TIME WARNER, COME TO US SOON', people will think.

In fact, he'll have acquired and bought out so many smaller companies on his expansion that he'll eventually run into another super giant. But you know what's easier than competing and lowering prices because of competition? Going behind closed doors and making a deal:

"We stay off each other's turf, that way, we can both keep our service prices high."

This has never happened before right? Oh wait.

>What is Rogers Cable Company

>>133520302
i already acknowledged that. i said it in my first two sentences.

>>133521624

I would much rather leave regulation in the hands of someone who actually has to respect the first amendment.

>>133521113
There's big companies on both sides

On the side against NN you have the media corporations and fraud news networks
On the side for NN you have the tech companies who RELY on a free and open internet for sustainable business

Basically the anti-NN fuckwits are trying to strangle one of the biggest market sectors in the US, and that market sector is fighting back.

It's big companies on all sides, but the pro net neutrality side is also the better side for freedom of the internet and speech in general.