https://www.washingtonpost.com/news /the-switch/wp/2017/07/1

>>134359842
Time for archive
https://archive.is/BmPcT

when i clicked this thread i hated government control but now i LOVE it
but yeah i didn't get the memo from 4chan hq, have i been fired?

Is that the fucking tree from the game I'm not allowed to play till I'm 25?

>>134359879
Came here to do this, beat me as usual. God bless

>>134359842

who the fuck is a spokesman for 4chan

>>134359842
4chan not being one person aside, why would this be surprising?

>>134360332

They came here, saw a few threads about it, and looked at all the shill responses. Remember, anon, 4chan is one person.

>>134359842

Literally only on /pol/ can you find a significant opposition to NN and /pol/ has only been against it in the past 2 years. Some of you retards clearly don't remember 2012-2013.

It's always the same retarded shit now about how it apparently "opens the door" to government censorship.

This is akin to saying an expansion of gun rights being imposed despite state protests is a bad thing. That McDonald v. Chicago forcing recognition of the right to bear arms in the home on all states means the federal government will take all guns away.

Net Neutrality is objectively a good thing and your a shill or a contrarian retard to imply otherwise. There is no colorable argument for what Net Neutrality actually is being a bad thing.

No it does not open the door to censorship, that isn't how this works. The FCC is not just the bleep bureau you retards. This has been settled precedent decades ago. The FCC is not allowed to regulate content on the internet. It's constitutionally forbidden from doing so.

Only content that in itself is a violation of the law can be blocked or taken down and that's almost entirely done through DMCAs and the FBI for the heinous shit.

They can't even so much as offer financial incentive to throttle certain websites. They can only enforce an absence of discriminatory throttling.

There is no intelligent argument against NN.

File: 1500501567344.png (409KB, 575x381px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 575x381px

>>134360239

>>134359842
>>134360332
>>134360554
>>134361046

>Trump does something the libs don't like
>Raid 4chan with shill threads pretending to be Trumpsters
>Report it to the news
>News reports what's going on on 4chan as if it's a sign of dissent.

We are reaching depth levels of fake news that shouldn't be conceivable. Also:
(((washingtonpost)))

>>134360239
It's the true ending. You have to collect the 7 chaos emeralds to fight his true form or else he leaves his seed in your waifu.

I won't spoil you on the ultimate ending though.

I'm against NN because the narrative of the political movement for it is that NN has been in place as default when in fact the bill was passed by Obama in 2016 on his way out of the white house.

If you must use misinformation, deceit, or manipulation of information to gain traction for your political movement to pander to retarded slag-brained normalfags then you are in the wrong regardless of your intent.

This isn't the only reason, I'm also against it due to companies which supported SOPA being for the bill and ISPs such as Comcast being in favor of it.

>>134361406

Have you even been outside of /pol/. There is huge consensus on this being a good thing. Not to say that that is an appeal to authority but that it isn't the work of "shills" every time someone has a different opinion than you.

Go ahead, articulate why NN is a bad thing. I've yet to hear an argument before that wasn't retarded dumb shit like how apparently the internet is entirely unregulated but Net Neutrality "opens the door" to enforcing Obscenity laws (which for the record is an all but dead doctrine like "Fighting Words", to the point where the Supreme Court opinion that declared it constitutional to ban possession of cp said it was okay even if the cp is "not obscene", as a doctrinal spare tire for when the Court inevitably kills the Miller Test).

It does not, even in the slightest way, increase the risk of government affecting the flow of content in any way other than telling corporations they aren't allowed to pick and choose which sites will have better connectivity.

>>134361847
>I'm against NN because Comcast is.

Well that really activates my almonds.

File: DEk4E0RUwAA7LHP.jpg (78KB, 1150x841px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1150x841px

>>134362187
You need your eyes checked, retard.

>>134359842
This only proves that 4chan is an MSM bastion. Only a fool will think this cesspit respect ones anonymity.

>>134362484

>issue becomes so wide spread that in the areas where Comcast has competition that there are people threatening to switch ISPs
>Comcast tries to save face and have vague PR against things that they have been lobbying for well over a decade.

Okay I stand corrected as to the grammar of your last sentence but do you have a point other than vague guilt by association remarks?

I'm not justifying NN by its wide appeal to virtually everyone outside of neo-/pol/ and baby boomers with facebook. I'm saying what NN *is* is a good thing.

Explain to me why it's bad.

>>134361046
>People like NN because they think the big ISP's should be regulated since they suck and have horrible.
>Don't understand whats happening here is big companies will be able to follow expensive regulation to the detriment of small ISP's.
If you want to fix the problem you figure out whats blocking competition and fix that. You don't let the government regulate it more.
Government is a necessary evil. They are full of retards like you. Don't give them more power to regulate shit.

>>134363349

>expensive regulation

Literally just don't throttle "hate speech" websites or websites with competing interests and it doesn't cost a dime.

>If you want to fix the problem you figure out whats blocking competition and fix that.

Sure, lets do that and also have Net Neutrality. To whatever extent Net Neutrality makes less scrupulous business ventures from starting up is a good thing.

Regulation isn't a sliding scale of more=bad; less=good. Certain actions can be bad or less optimal than others, certain actions are better than inaction.

>Government is a necessary evil. They are full of retards like you. Don't give them more power to regulate shit.

Again stop giving me vague AnCap-like platitudes and explain why Net Neutrality is bad.

You're preaching a vague philosophy abut why "regulation" and "government" is bad here but not explaining why.

Specifically, why is forcing ISPs to not throttle a bad thing?

>>134362187
>1L alert
Maintaining power and scope of review of the bloated and thinly stretched FCC can only be a good thing right? They're so good at addressing violations, as they demonstrated with the NSA metadata revelations.
Never mind that the FTC is perfectly equipped to address any unfair or deceptive trade practices, and AT laws will deal with any horizontal collusion or abuse of dominant market position.
Re fighting words, try burning a cross and justifying it as symbolic speech, see how far you get with that one

>there are anti-NN shills on 4chan
Pathetic.

File: 1499885769073.jpg (22KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x300px

>>134359842
only 4 more years until I get to play

>>134364899

>try burning a cross and justifying it as symbolic speech, see how far you get with that one

Based on Supreme Court precedent, pretty far actually.

It's just that burning a cross *on* a black mans yard is trespasser and threatening but the law can't say it's *per se* threatening but a court can on a case by case basis find that the circumstances are threatening (they will everytime) and the same may occur if you burn a cross very near and in front of a black mans property.

Fighting Words is dead, in the prior example it's the "non-speech" elements that get there. There has never been a specific example of what words or speech "by their very utterance" tend to breach the peace and therefore can be prohibited specifically.

All attempts to ban fighting words have and will fail. You can only have "breach of the peace" be illegal and wait until after said peace is breached to charge said person.

It's devolved into just being a more pretentious version of incitement, which you can only be held to if you were actually successful in incitement.