Join the Day of Action for Net Neutrality, or else we may all

Talk about hyperbole.
OMG the sky will fall!
4chan would be in more danger if it passed.

>>133594689
What are you talking about? It passed two years ago.

>>133594755
No it didn't. The FCC declared the internet a public utility. That's all they did. Then spastic internet tech writers started calling it a "net neutrality" law. They have been confused and confusing readers with the term ever since. Sometimes intentionally.

>>133594267
Its too late, anon, the r/t_d shills have had Cambridge Analytics convincing their groupthink enitity that net neutrality is communist.

/pol/ used to stand up for the internet.
Now it stands up for a billionaire globalist Donald Trump.

>>133595207
Liar! A widely-cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was when the Internet service provider Comcast was secretly slowing (a.k.a. "throttling") uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.[6] Comcast didn't stop blocking these protocols like BitTorrent until the FCC ordered them to do so.[7] In 2004, The Madison River Communications company was fined $15,000 by the FCC for restricting their customer’s access to Vonage which was rivaling their own services.[8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for the new shared data plans could access the application.[9] In April 2017, an attempt to compromise net neutrality in the United States is being considered by the newly appointed FCC chairman, Ajit Varadaraj Pai.[10][11] On May 16, 2017, a process began to roll back Open Internet rules, in place since 2015. This rule-making process includes a public comment period that lasts sixty days: thirty days for public comment and thirty days for the FCC to respond.[12]

>>133594267
if it happened we would find a way around it.

>>133596050
fuck you

Nothing is happening. It's all impotent dickwaving on both sides.

>>133595425
>violation of net neutrality principles
See. In that sentence they are using Brian Wu's philosophy he termed 'net neutrality". That also appears to be a from a wiki paragraph, written by one of those confused people. Madison River Communications was fined for violated the FCC regulation, not "net neutrality".

>>133598175
Read the whole thing. Look at what's going on. The FCC isn't restricting any freedom of speech or even content.
The rules as they are have been in place since 2015. The reason the writer of the wiki article decided to word things as "net neutrality", such as in the Madison instance, is that the FCC regulation at that time was possible through power which was later protected in 2015 through net neutrality laws. There isn't any message of Brian Wu that I noticed in that article.

>>133598643
*mention
>>133596494
Maybe. I don't feel that way though.

>>133595297
It's not too late. /pol/ does not stand for shit except what I say it does!